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

willywonty

Hashtag first world problem – especially for those of us on the early FITs when the scheme first started back in 2012. I have no problem with the tariff rising more slowly. People fortunate enough to have spare money to acquire PV back in the day have done well out of this incentivisation scheme over the years – I mean, earning oodles whether you use your own energy or not? Talk about having your cake and eating it…

Doc_N

One small but significant WASPI related point. It's almost a month now since the announcement of this consultation. There's been a central register of all those signed up since the original scheme in 2010. Why have there been no notifications to those most directly affected? A cynic might suggest that any consultation is being kept to the absolute minimum required. And quite possibly not even that, given the short timescale and failure to notify.

bobkel

CPI was first introduced as a measure of inflation in January 1996. The then labour governments introduced FITs in 2002, and ROCs in 2010. The argument for changing the contractual arrangement on indexation  is specious to say the least, and if implemented, amounts to a breach of contract that should be challenged in the courts. It would seem that the government’s intention is to reduce the cost of electricity to consumers - yet the effect on consumers were the proposals to be implemented for an average household amounts to about £5 per annum initially. In destroying trust, the government will impact further investment on renewables in the UK which is the basis for far more significant wholesale electricity price reductions where the effect is measured in hundreds of pounds to the consumer. The government need to explain what are the real reason for considering the changes.

wakeupalarm

Clearly a lot of people are angry about this change as so many have taken the time to signup to this forum to make their first post regarding this matter. Welcome! to all the first time posters in this thread.  

Simplesimon

It is symptomatic of government that they cannot keep their word.  I am sure there is nothing we can do and that the consultation is just lip service.  I signed up to RPI increases annually and invested significantly in solar power and therefore I should be entitled to what was agreed.  

matt_drummer

Simplesimon said:

It is symptomatic of government that they cannot keep their word.  I am sure there is nothing we can do and that the consultation is just lip service.  I signed up to RPI increases annually and invested significantly in solar power and therefore I should be entitled to what was agreed.  

Unless I am incorrect, the Government are not funding your FIT payments. In any case the Government does not have any money of its own.

FIT payments are funded from energy bills and therefore most of the people paying for your `entitlement' receive nothing back in return, at least not directly.

As the financial climate has changed over the last 15 years it is only right that this agreement is scrutinised to make sure it is still acceptable to those paying for it.

RPI has been higher in recent years than may have been expected due to world events.

That has resulted in higher increases in FIT payments than anticipated.

A windfall, if you like for FIT receivers.

In some other societies, you may have got a more extreme reaction, if you get out of with with only CPI increases in future I would think you should be quite grateful.

QrizB

matt_drummer said:

RPI has been higher in recent years than may have been expected due to world events.
That has resulted in higher increases in FIT payments than anticipated.

On the contrary, the FIT payments have increased by exactly as much as anticipated - that is, by RPI.

If retail prices had risen by less, the RPI woould have risen less and the FIT would still have risen exactly as anticipated.

gefnew

If we had only CPI at the onset what would they come up with to change the payments now i see no difference, bad management again, need the lady from the fair with a crystal ball to run these schemes.

inspectorperez

To me this proposal (consultation if you will, whichever option) is breach of contract without any shadow of doubt.

In a 25 year contract a key condition is one which contains the formula for the annual consideration payable (i.e the FIT payments). Any subsequent variation to that condition would only be legal if it was agreed to by both parties.

Furthermore it sends a clear message that a UK government is not a trustworthy party to any form of legal contract.

Doc_N

This may prove to be very relevant:

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/government-loses-appeal-on-solar-feed-in-tariffs