Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

zeupater

kevin6666 wrote: »

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.

Hi

From the above, I take it that you are not well versed in reading legislation or technical documentation. The important point which seems to have been totally overlooked is to reference the usual 'terms', 'definitions' or 'glossary' appendix, which in the case of the latest version of the source document from which the above was lifted is appendix 4 on page 86.(https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/75736/feed-tariff-scheme-guidance-licensed-electricity-suppliers-version-5.2.pdf) ....

The quoted text above relates everything to the ''installation’s Eligibility Date", which is defined as being ....

Eligibility Date
means the date as regards a particular Eligible Installation from which eligibility for FIT Payments commences which, unless the FIT Order provides otherwise, shall be the later of:
(a) the date, as applicable, of
(i) receipt by the Authority of a FIT Generator’s written request for ROO-FIT Accreditation in a form acceptable to the Authority; or
(ii) receipt by a FIT Licensee of a FIT Generator’s written request for MCS-certified Registration, accompanied by an MCS Certificate for the installation;
(b) the date on which the installation is Commissioned; or
(c) 1st April 2010;

... with most systems being covered by (ii)b - "the date on which the installation is Commissioned"

Our system was commissioned, registered for MCS certification on-line, the TGM reading taken and the FiT documentation completed & sent with the commissioning reading as per the definition referenced above .... as such, I don't follow the point being raised ... are you saying that the referenced Ofgem guidance document (132/13) and all previous/associated versions are and were incorrect ?

I find this to be quite an interesting viewpoint, let us know and one of us will contact Ofgem for clarification ... on the other hand, perhaps you wouldn't mind letting them know how incompetent you believe they are regarding their systems (both written & applied) and copy us all in on the exchanges ... make quite a good subject for a separate thread if you wouldn't mind opening one, albeit, probably a pretty short one in which the term 'vexatious' will likely appear in the quoted official reply ...

HTH
Z

tunnel

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

But its only guidance, doesn't mean it has to be adhered to. He really should state the full facts to give credence to his argument.

On saying that, regular browsers of this forum will know how much my FIT provider likes to keep up with rules and regulations:rotfl:

Martyn1981

Morning Kevin. Just realised that in addressing your claims that the FiT scheme was full of fraud, I forgot to respond to this sentence in the same post:

kevin6666 wrote: »

Those that have invested 1000s in panels etc will of cause argue about cancer rates and all sort of new scientist nonsense.

I assume that this was in response to my earlier post:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

New scientist, this week, ran an article where the health impact of coal generation in Europe is calculated at €43bn per year. With an estimated 1,600 deaths in the UK per year attributed to air pollution from coal-burning power plants.

Strangely, since I didn't mention cancer rates, it would appear that you did some research and read the article:

The human cost of coal in the UK: 1600 deaths a year

and noted this paragraph:

"The findings add to mounting evidence of the effect of air pollution on health. In October, the World Health Organization declared for the first time that outdoor air pollution was a direct cause of cancer, and a report commissioned by the WHO on the global burden of disease ranked such pollution as one of the most important risk factors for chronic disease in Europe."

I'm not sure why you would describe WHO findings as "new scientist nonsense", are you suggesting they are wrong?

Coal (and nuclear) when compared to most renewables, do provide valueable and reliable baseload. But trying to ignore or hide from the reality of their full costs on society is no way to debate our future energy needs, and costs.

The true costs of coal and nuclear are far higher than the price we pay in our energy bills, be it through subsidy support from general taxation, or NHS budgets.

Unfortunately, these hidden costs distort comparisons, and make renewables appear more expensive ...... due to the honesty/transparency of their costs and subsidies.

Mart.

cepheus

The simplest methods are the best

Shut that door!

Jeannie Dawkins

As we embark on our final splurge of Christmas shopping, spare a thought for all those heaters blasting hot air in customers' faces, set above wide open doors. Jeannie Dawkins says the waste of energy is a national disgrace that must be ended

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2202177/shut_that_door.html

silverwhistle

I'm posting this as the radio broadcasts Messiah - "the people that walked in darkness had seen a great light".. how appropriate.

I obviously didn't comment the other day when I first saw this thread or board (I try and avoid negativity), although I thought I had, but my experience this summer was that I sent off my application to the FIT administrator (I wasn't able to send the form online) and on the day of receipt of my application _they_ phoned _me_ and I gave them that morning's reading.I could have lied, of course, for the sake of a few tens of units, but I'll leave that to the devious people who think such ideas and think them worthwhile in the grander scheme of things.

Anyway, 'Messiah' is great music even for an atheist, so ciao...

cepheus

Perhaps this board should be re-named the 'government environmental subsidy board' and all discussions that might result in significant environmental benefits such as insulation, rewilding, reducing waste, teleconferencing, not driving/buying stuff should be banned? These are not nearly as sexy as a shiny set of panels on your roof! Hey if you really wanted to fake environmentalism you could use them to charge up a massive bank of batteries in an overpowered overweight car like a Tesla.