The Government Is Quietly Changing Your FIT Solar Payments

Goldwing1

I'm unsure if I've posted this in the right place but it needs to be broadcast far and wide.

The video that alerted me to this can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPAefR-6SCw

The "consultation" it refers to can be found at 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/feed-in-tariffs-fit-scheme-indexation-changes

As suggested, I have not responded to the consultation but have instead sent an objection to RO@energysecurity.gov.uk 

My e-mail reads;

Dear sir/madam,

I have been directed to your “consultation” by a video which can be found at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPAefR-6SCw

I will NOT respond to your online “consultation” because I believe it to be invalid for the following reasons;

1.      I have come across this by accident. You have NOT contacted the FIT users who will be affected by this “consultation”. This is despite the fact that all of the people affected will be known to yourselves if not via ofgem, via the energy suppliers who we submit meter readings to.

2.      You only give options for change or “Don’t know”. You do not give an option for no change or, more correctly, to honour your contractual obligations under the scheme.

For the above reasons I consider your “consultation” to be invalid and should be withdrawn.

Kind regards

Please circulate the detail far and wide. Does anyone know how to alert MSE Towers to this?

QrizB

There's a thread over on "Green and Ethical" where most of the solar PV geeks hang out:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6638008/feed-in-tarrif-being-reduced

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

Fundamentally it affects a relatively small number of relatively well-off home owners, and so I can't see MSE putting a great deal of effort into opposing it.

MWT

Goldwing1 said:

2.      You only give options for change or “Don’t know”. You do not give an option for no change or, more correctly, to honour your contractual obligations under the scheme.

For the above reasons I consider your “consultation” to be invalid and should be withdrawn.

The original contract allows for this sort of change so yes, they can do this...

debitcardmayhem

They are only changing the indexation, still getting more money for old rope, the length of the contract was too long IMHO.

squirrelpie

QrizB said:

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

I disagree. I think they'll count actual votes cast in response to their form and ignore written-in alternatives. Just as they would in an election.

QrizB

squirrelpie said:

QrizB said:

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

I disagree. I think they'll count actual votes cast in response to their form and ignore written-in alternatives. Just as they would in an election.

This is a consultation, not an election. All responses get recorded and there aren't any votes.

From the consultation website:

Ways to respond

Respond online

or

Email to:

RO@energysecurity.gov.uk

Note the "or" in that. You're not obliged to use the online form.

MWT

squirrelpie said:

QrizB said:

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

I disagree. I think they'll count actual votes cast in response to their form and ignore written-in alternatives. Just as they would in an election.

This is just taking a straw-poll, it is not binding in any way.

Hence there is not a 'no' option... 

Goldwing1

MWT said:

squirrelpie said:

QrizB said:

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

I disagree. I think they'll count actual votes cast in response to their form and ignore written-in alternatives. Just as they would in an election.

This is just taking a straw-poll, it is not binding in any way.

Hence there is not a 'no' option... 

Nothing in Government is ever that simple.

Grumpy_chap

Goldwing1 said:

I'm unsure if I've posted this in the right place but it needs to be broadcast far and wide.

The video that alerted me to this can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPAefR-6SCw

The "consultation" it refers to can be found at 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/feed-in-tariffs-fit-scheme-indexation-changes

As suggested, I have not responded to the consultation but have instead sent an objection to RO@energysecurity.gov.uk 

My e-mail reads;

Dear sir/madam,

I have been directed to your “consultation” by a video which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPAefR-6SCw

I will NOT respond to your online “consultation” because I believe it to be invalid for the following reasons;

1.      I have come across this by accident. You have NOT contacted the FIT users who will be affected by this “consultation”. This is despite the fact that all of the people affected will be known to yourselves if not via ofgem, via the energy suppliers who we submit meter readings to.

2.      You only give options for change or “Don’t know”. You do not give an option for no change or, more correctly, to honour your contractual obligations under the scheme.

For the above reasons I consider your “consultation” to be invalid and should be withdrawn.

Kind regards

Please circulate the detail far and wide. Does anyone know how to alert MSE Towers to this?

Thank you for alerting me to the consultation which I will now read and respond to.

IMO, the FiT are too generous by far and have outlived the initial purpose of driving wider adoption of solar.  Consequently, as behaviours have been changed, the subsidy is no longer warranted.  There is a precedent for encouragement to change being withdrawn and retrospectively - consider EVs - so no reason why the incentives to maintain FiT warrants exceptional continuity.

Qyburn

I don't suppose any of those "against" could put forward a plausible reason why FIT payment indexing should account for housing cost increases.

MWT

Goldwing1 said:

MWT said:

squirrelpie said:

QrizB said:

If you read the consultation you'll find you do have the option of commenting directly, rather than the limited options given in the form. Your email is likely to be counted as a valid response.

I disagree. I think they'll count actual votes cast in response to their form and ignore written-in alternatives. Just as they would in an election.

This is just taking a straw-poll, it is not binding in any way.

Hence there is not a 'no' option... 

Nothing in Government is ever that simple.

I think this one is really that simple, there is going to be a change, people do not get a vote on it, they are just interested in how strongly people object...

As with so many of the policy changes being considered, they like to see how much of a reaction they will get first, at least this is a 'consultation' rather than a simple 'leak'...