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

first500

Please be aware that you don't have to indicate either of the two options in the consultation as a preference. It is not a mandatory answer. You can ignore the question and just write neither in the comments box

orrery

I'd say it is breach of contract. Despite saying that they can change it, the clause specifying RPI increases is quite specific - changing it to CPI would violate that clause. If that can be changed then what did that clause mean in the first place?

It terms of fairness, we need to consider the situation at the date the contract was signed. The popular mood was that:

- solar panel reliability was an unknown quantity

- solar output falls with time

- panels may need replacing before the end of the period

- roof maintenance becomes more problematic as panels may need temporary removal (I had to have them removed to have tiles replaced requiring additional costs and scaffolding)

- inverters were not expected to last more than 5 to 10 years, possibly requiring multiple replacements

- the government were desperate to get CO2 measures in place to meet international obligations

- prices were much higher at the time (mine were £12k)

- there were plenty of people around saying that solar 'doesn't work"

- consumers weren't that interested, it was all a bit new and not seen as a good investment

To turn round and say that we're now making a killing so the rates should be frozen, capped or adjusted is disingenuous. We need to ask - if had been the other way round, would the government have been happy to increase the rates part way through the contract, and we all know that the answer to that would be a firm no.

Ectophile

- inverters were not expected to last more than 5 to 10 years, possibly requiring multiple replacements

They were right on that one.  My first inverter came with a 5½ year warranty.  That's a weirdly specific figure. Almost as it the manufacturer knew how long it would last.

Of course it went wrong at 6 years old.

JaneandBeth

As someone who got in on the first wave of FIT, I must say I am happy with what I have received each year - around £1200, depending on the British weather. However, my electricity use is very high (no gas out here) and I rely on the FIT to make it affordable. I realise that is my problem, not applicable to many, but it seems the relatively small amount the government may save per home is not going to achieve much; our revered (?) chancellor seems totally out of her depth and frantically grabbing at whatever she can in the hopes that some of it will stick. The terms were agreed when the FIT contracts were set up; HANDS OFF.

chat5hit

Solar FIT in the UK generates approximately 6 GW of power. This is equivalent to 6 large nuclear power stations. If you waited until a cold day in winter with no wind and all turned them off in protest at the breach of contract would this make a good point to the Labour government. Perhaps remind them of the 3 day weeks back in the 1970s!

mdjuergens

The point is not about loosing a relatively small amount of money - option A: the payment per kWh goes up by less than expected, option B: it stays the same for several years. The point is about breach of contract. In the "real" world that is only allowed in truly exceptional circumstances. 
Nobody would have minded much if they had specified CPI in the first place and they are free to do so for any FUTURE schemes.

mdjuergens

matt_drummer said:

I can't see what the big deal is?

They are not going back in time and adjusting the past, nobody will have to pay anything back.

The rates will not reduce, they will either go up by a slightly smaller percentage each year in future or stay as they are now for a while.

Hardly the end of the world is it?

The point is, that it's a breach of contract. Even if the amounts are small. It's the principle.

QrizB

As the Star Wars clip (and a million memes) says:

AlanMTS

The Feed-in Tariffs Consultation on changes to inflation indexation in the Feed in Tariffs scheme pdf mentions on page 4 - INTRODUCTION
"The Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) scheme was launched in 2010 with the aim of supporting small scale electricity generation (up to 5MW), particularly by organisations, businesses, communities and individuals that had not traditionally engaged in the electricity market". 

I'm sure that domestic generators like myself were limited to just 4kWh generation ie 16 x 250w panels. So what is this reference to (up to 5MW)?
If there are generators producing megawatts of electricity, could there not be a distinction between the small scale 4kW producers and those producing larger amounts? ie keep RPI for those homes which chose to invest (often at a cost to themselves and their bank balances) to help the Green Energy Cause, with the expectation of breaking even after 14 years plus, (based on the low costs of energy in those days), through the FIT and deemed export payments.
And surely, any surplus energy we generators produced was then resold back to the consumers by the utility companies at a price much higher than they paid us for it? Doesn't this off-set what the Government has to cough-up for our electricity?
The utility companies or Off-gen set a standing charge for infra-structure and recouping so-called losses brought about by the bankruptcy of so many utility companies which had entered the market to win our custom. So some of the FIT payment must include our "Standing Charge" for providing infrastructure to help flatten the energy consumption curve. And in recent years I have invested in a new hybrid inverter and battery system so that, hopefully, I am contributing even more to the Green Energy Market.
I am a bit cynical regarding the Governments scheme in this case. Rather than investing billions in nuclear and other schemes, the money is better spent in encouraging more domestic generation, including setting up local energy clubs - but that is another issue. 

QrizB

AlanMTS said:

I'm sure that domestic generators like myself were limited to just 4kWh generation ie 16 x 250w panels.

There was no such blanket limit. However above 4kW the FIT rate was reduced and you are likely to have needed DNO permission.

AlanMTS said:

So what is this reference to (up to 5MW)?

The larger systems, up to 5MW. Above 5MW there were ROCs rather than FITs (indexing of which is also being consulted on).

AlanMTS said:

If there are generators producing megawatts of electricity, could there not be a distinction between the small scale 4kW producers and those producing larger amounts? ie keep RPI for those homes which chose to invest (often at a cost to themselves and their bank balances) to help the Green Energy Cause 

There could be. Why not write that into your consultation response?

AlanMTS said:

And surely, any surplus energy we generators produced was then resold back to the consumers by the utility companies at a price much higher than they paid us for it?

FIT generation payments might've been lowe than wholesale energy costs in recent years, but it's not been true for all FITs over the entirety of the scheme.

AlanMTS said:

So some of the FIT payment must include our "Standing Charge"

Yes, FIT and ROC payments are some of the so-caled "green levy" which contribtes to everyone's electricity costs. Reducing the "green levy" seems to be the main reason why the Government is consulting on reducing the FIT indexation rate.