Panel of Supreme Justices refused the Government leave to appeal - 43.3p confirmed

GaryMo_2

The Supreme Court has today rejected an appeal bid by the Department of Energy and Climate Change over cuts to the Feed-in Tariff scheme for solar PV.

A panel of Supreme Justices refused the Government leave to appeal an earlier High Court ruling that the cuts were unlawful.

The decision leaves Energy Ministers out of legal options and they must now accept they acted unlawfully by proposing to bring in cuts before the consultation period on changes was completed.

It means solar PV installations registered after the original December 12, 2011, deadline and before the March 3, 2012, contingency date now qualify for the original 43.3p kw/h subsidy rate.


Great news!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17490096

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/123349-supreme-court-kicks-out-decc-appeal-on-feed-in-tariffs.html

jamesingram

"great news " or not , depending on your view point.

HMG will now have to pay this higher rate to installs from 12/12/11 to 2/3/12
those that have benefitted from lower install costs and even higher return than the pre 12/12 installs . Good for the few lucky ones.
So with a limited budget this will reduce available funds for all future installs and therefore reduce total no. of future PV installs under FITs .
DECC hoped to decrease installs p/a by 80% to stay with-in budget restraints, they will now have to reduce this further.
The solar industry have, by standing against HMG, reduced thier future FITs funded market.

Cardew

jamesingram wrote: »

"great news " or not , depending on your view point.

HMG will now have to pay this higher rate to installs from 12/12/11 to 2/3/12
those that have benefitted from lower install costs and even higher return than the pre 12/12 installs . Good for the few lucky ones.
So with a limited budget this will reduce available funds for all future installs and therefore reduce total no. of future PV installs under FITs .
DECC hoped to decrease installs p/a by 80% to stay with-in budget restraints, they will now have to reduce this further.
The solar industry have, by standing against HMG, reduced thier future FITs funded market.

I agree, it will be an 'own goal' by the solar industry - aided by the stupid Friends of the Earth.

As a result of their efforts there will now be less solar PV in UK. The 'solar industry' - which largely didn't exist 2 years ago - will now move on to the next 'get rich quick' scheme.

The venture capitalists funding the Rent a roof companies are the ones who have made a real killing - unless of course this, or a future, Government renege on their FIT commitment.

jamesingram

Cardew wrote: »

unless of course this, or a future, Government renege on their FIT commitment.

There is provision in the original legistration that could allows them to do this. sorry i dont have a link to the relavent info, but i beleive it to be true .

The solar industry should have been dealing with the issue of lobbying to increasing the available future budget and setting FITs payment to suit long term growth. Rather than holding on to the higher rate.
In thier (solar ind.) defence , the real legal point was that the government made a mockery of thier own consultation process by pre-empting it with a rate drop decision.
I believe management by HMG of FITs through out the last year
is the real cause of the position it now finds itself in, though the
solar ind. haven't helped itself.

Hobbo2006

jamesingram wrote: »

"great news " or not , depending on your view point.

HMG will now have to pay this higher rate to installs from 12/12/11 to 2/3/12
those that have benefitted from lower install costs and even higher return than the pre 12/12 installs . Good for the few lucky ones.
So with a limited budget this will reduce available funds for all future installs and therefore reduce total no. of future PV installs under FITs .
DECC hoped to decrease installs p/a by 80% to stay with-in budget restraints, they will now have to reduce this further.
The solar industry have, by standing against HMG, reduced thier future FITs funded market.

I think that the majority of business owners in this sector were well aware that this would be a short term business or that they would have to diversify in the short term to survive. With or without the people that signed up in the final few months the tarrif was being decreased anyway.

Personally I took a gamble knowing that I could end up on the 21p tarrif. The upside was worth the risk and I'm glad I did it. Payback should be 5 years 3 months, depending on RPI rises. Could be sooner as we look to be generating around 15% more than the quoted SAP calculations.

GaryMo_2

jamesingram wrote: »

"great news " or not , depending on your view point.

My view point first and foremost will be personal gain from the higher fit rate (just being honest!) but this paragraph from the article I linked to is a good example why it's good news - "But more importantly it provides certainty to the renewable energy market that the Government cannot plan to make retrospective cuts to future schemes."

Cardew

GaryMo wrote: »

My view point first and foremost will be personal gain from the higher fit rate (just being honest!) but this paragraph from the article I linked to is a good example why it's good news - "But more importantly it provides certainty to the renewable energy market that the Government cannot plan to make retrospective cuts to future schemes."

There was no retrospective cut!

The Government gave 6 weeks notice that the FIT would be reduced on 12 Dec 2011 instead of April 2012

The 'unlawful' aspect was that they announced that date during the consultation period.

Had they waited a couple of more weeks, until the end of the consultion period, and then made the announcement we wouldn't have the farcical situation that now exists.

The only people who have lost out in this saga is 99% of electricity customers.

The Government's motives were sensible and reasonable - albeit unlawful - which demonstrates(again) that the Law is an A$$.

GaryMo_2

Wasn't the consultation period due to end around two weeks after the 12th December, meaning the government reduced the tariff before the end of the consultation period? It's not the announcing of the date, more the date itself being within the consultation period.

It's like convicting somebody of a crime halfway through a court case!

Kernel_Sanders

Hobbo2006 wrote: »

Personally I took a gamble knowing that I could end up on the 21p tarrif. The upside was worth the risk and I'm glad I did it. Payback should be 5 years 3 months, depending on RPI rises.

But it wasn't a gamble at all. If your payback period is that short on the high tariff, then the lower tariff would also be a no-brainer investment, although not (quite) so lucrative.
I am in the same position as you, but I'm not saying this decision is justification for sticking my neck out - I haven't.

pwllbwdr

I'm in the same position - I gave the go ahead in January just before the first appeal was lost. I'm very lucky - low install prices and unexpectedy the high rate FIT. Good for me but not really a sensible use of subsidy.

henchard

jamesingram wrote: »

The solar industry have, by standing against HMG, reduced thier future FITs funded market.

Whilst your argument has some merit you can hardly blame the solar industry for the lamentable 'c0ck!!! ups' by the government. The whole tariff payment system could have easily been linked to the average wholesale price of PV panels at the onset. Then to announce the cut in tariffs so quickly and before the end of consultation was completely barking.

Unfortunately it ain't necessarily over as some there is some talk of solar companies now taking legal action against the government for loss of business.

You can't blame the business or the consumers for taking advantage of a poorly designed scheme. The one good thing to come out of it is that it shows that the law will as it is written will be upheld and it may help prevent future governments retrospectively tinkering with payments (thus engendering future confidence).