Plans to change what households make from solar Feed-in Tariffs 'feels a breach of pro

gefnew

From mse 2010.
Feed In Tariffs(FIT) Announced. — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Scot_39

inspectorperez said:

"Its not just fit contract holders and the govt / panel suppliers involved."

That's an interesting "take" @Scot_39 suggesting if I am not mistaken that the party with whom I contracted did not have legal capacity to contract.

Will be interesting to see if this argument is tested with early adopters and others.

Learn to read English.  I didn't say they didn't have authority.

But they do not pay the bills - and so those paying the bills have a right to object to those contracts taken out on their behalf.

And any govt contract based in law - is subject to revision or  repeal at any time - as happens regularly - like every 5 years in some cases - when parties either different views take over.  And net zero policy - all net zero policy is now up for such revisions / repeal by w major political parties.

And in this case consuners and consumer groups have been specifically invited in tbe govt consultation to respond on this issue.  Because they are involved.

Scot_39

gefnew said:

From mse 2010.
Feed In Tariffs(FIT) Announced. — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Hardly mainstream media.

And I doubt most paying the cost would have at time let alone even now realise tgd profits that were going to be / are being made.

matt_drummer

Aren't they only talking about slightly reducing the annual increase in FIT payments from now onwards?

I realise it is a change to the contract and don't think that is really correct, but is it really that much of a big deal?

They are not taking it away completely as far as I can tell and they'll still pay the current rates or better going forward.

Doc_N

matt_drummer said:

Aren't they only talking about slightly reducing the annual increase in FIT payments from now onwards?

I realise it is a change to the contract and don't think that is really correct, but is it really that much of a big deal?

They are not taking it away completely as far as I can tell and they'll still pay the current rates or better going forward.

It’s a small reduction, but an increasing one as the gap between CPI and RPI increases over the years. But it’s the principle that matters, not just for the government but for the credibility of the Labour Party. If they can break this contract, they can just as easily break any contract - I wonder how pensioners would react to the inevitable loss of the Triple Lock, followed by increases of CPI-1% for example. Once the principle of broken contracts is established, anything’s possible.

inspectorperez

"Learn to read English" @Scot_39

No need to be rude in a grown up discussion!

matt_drummer

Doc_N said:

It’s a small reduction, but an increasing one as the gap between CPI and RPI increases over the years. But it’s the principle that matters, not just for the government but for the credibility of the Labour Party. If they can break this contract, they can just as easily break any contract - I wonder how pensioners would react to the inevitable loss of the Triple Lock, followed by increases of CPI-1% for example. Once the principle of broken contracts is established, anything’s possible.

I think that ship has sailed!

Perhaps what we had was actually alright.

It's not a small reduction really, a smaller increase may be a more appropriate way to describe it, it's how I see it.

I do receive FIT payments, they can do what they like as far as I am concerned although I draw my line at them asking for some of it back.

QrizB

_Sam_ said:

Out of curiosity would this affect rent-a-roof companies as while the difference in payment is small for an individual, for the companies it would be more substantial given the large numbers of solar panels they invested in.

It will indeed.

I'm expecting those businesses, plus the larger generators who have FIT-supported industrial systems, to make strong representations in response to this consultation.

The consultation period closes on Friday.

gefnew

But do not forget about the investment funds that also dependent on the income promised by the scheme which may impact on peoples pensions etc.

Scot_39

Doc_N said:

matt_drummer said:

Aren't they only talking about slightly reducing the annual increase in FIT payments from now onwards?

I realise it is a change to the contract and don't think that is really correct, but is it really that much of a big deal?

They are not taking it away completely as far as I can tell and they'll still pay the current rates or better going forward.

It’s a small reduction, but an increasing one as the gap between CPI and RPI increases over the years. But it’s the principle that matters, not just for the government but for the credibility of the Labour Party. If they can break this contract, they can just as easily break any contract - I wonder how pensioners would react to the inevitable loss of the Triple Lock, followed by increases of CPI-1% for example. Once the principle of broken contracts is established, anything’s possible.

Contracts are "broken" every day - especially those no longer "FIT for purpose" - probably more so govt ones than others given how badly they are often formulated - and how often legislation is changed by opposing parties - every n years.

And as has already been demonstrated the energy minister wants suppliers to "break" even 1 year fixes - because rates are falling - but strangely IIRC never has when the govt under his leadership of the DESNZ and defacto Ofgem has been responsible for rates and standing charges rising.

And when it comes to as one FIT benefactor termed it above the "obscene profits" - on FIT - far lesser profits on energy have been subject to modified terms - as that's exactly what has happened with windfall taxes.

So maybe we should leave RPI - until its scrapped as planned by ONS by 2030 iirc - and then you will get 0 additional return perhaps.

Make the profits on FIT taxable if not already at investors marginal rates - perhaps including the new 2% govt offset - and then ...

given there are clear precedents for it - maybe we can also apply a special windfall tax to FIT - certainly for those now getting c75-77p against market rates wholesale like 6-7p in Sep - or like SEG max flat rate currently around c15p.  

The current oil and gas windfall tax still in place is the EPL (Energy Profits Levy) - and iirc the rate raised from original 25% to 38% and extended to 2030 by the current govt.  So North Sea production subject to iirc a combined 78% on profits impacted by measure.

And given other non income tax rates have been set for another +2% - perhaps we should just say 80% on FIT.

Or better still - as we are talking about renewables - what about the Electricity Generator Levy - that applied a 45% additional tax rate on older renewables contracts during the crisis due to them benefiting from high gas rates at peak of crisis.  Although in that case iirc the threshold was a generous £75/MWh - but this was an additional tax rate on excess profits - not baseline reasonable profits.

I seem to remember none of the produces or generators being exactly "happy" about those tax EPL / EGL changes.

And even a pseudo EGL at 75p and above - well it would certainly take the shine off the returns fro the last 10 years of the 2011 example posted above.

In fact I might well suggest just that as a solution to the govt consultation - and those making the biggest profits - can pay the fit rates for others on less generous terms - and take the burden off of ordinary energy consumers.