Here's my summary of the FITs content.
FITs are covered in this doc:
IA for the small-scale electricity sector4 scenarios have been modelled:
1. “8% ROI”
2. “lead scenario”
3. “3.5% community”
4. “non-microgen"
1. 8% ROI - not seen as a practical proposition. Assumes mainly PV
Predicts 2.8 million installations by 2020 generating 8TWh
Assumes wind is deployed at sites with 6.5m/s average wind speed
2. lead scenario
Based on the 8% ROI model but with refinements and additional consistency with existing ROC system
Lower tariff for PV compared to 8% ROI model.
Assumes wind is deployed at sites with 5.5m/s average wind speed
Predicts 870,000 installations by 2020 generating 6TWh
3. 3.5% community
Tariff levels set to stimulate 3.5% of electricity from renewables across all scales by 2020
Offers higher tariffs to small wind and PV and lower tariffs for larger scale systems
Predicts 1.2 million installations by 2020 generating 11TWh
4. non-microgen - set to incentivise installations in the 2-5MW range
Tariff would be £165/MWh
Predicts 8,600 installations by 2020 generating 6TWh
"negligible" household take-up
Reading between the lines (I can't see it stated anywhere explicitly) is that if you sign up for FITs
you will not be able to claim ROCs.
The report recommends scenario 2 - lead scenario
"This schedule of tariffs is projected to deliver a wide range of technologies which will allow
competitive markets to develop, driving innovation and bringing down costs into the future.
Tariffs have been proposed at such a level that significant numbers of householders, communities,
businesses and public sector organisations will have the opportunity to become producers of
renewable electricity, bringing electricity generation into the public arena and fostering
behavioural change."
Apparently there is a detailed report produced by Element Energy/Poyry
("Design of Feed-in Tariffs for sub-5MW Electricity in Great Britain - Quantitative Analysis")
but that doesn't appear to have been published yet.
This is what the report says about MCS accredited systems:
Accreditation
87. An accreditation requirement for participation in FITs, (such as the microgeneration
certification scheme (MCS) which is for (sic) a requirement for participation in the Low Carbon
Buildings Programme grant scheme) for product manufacturers should improve product reliability
but may also have anti-competitive effects which may raise the cost of delivering small-scale
renewable electricity generation.
88. Enforced accreditation is likely to lead to enhanced product reliability and may bring
health and safety benefits over and above existing standards. However, such a system would
impose costs on potential new entrants to the UK market for small-scale electricity generation
capital goods. This barrier to entry may also shelter incumbent (already accredited) firms
from competition and allow them to gain from high prices for their products as demand increases
with the introduction of FITs. Higher prices resulting from high levels of concentration in
manufacturing and supply chain industries could constrain demand and raise the level of support
required for any given level of generation. These impacts have not been quantified.
So this doesn't actually say that systems must be MCS accredited but it does look like it is pointing that way.
Appendix A contains some illustrative tariff figures for the different scenarios but needs more explanation.
(some of the figures for wind under the 8% ROI model must be errors e.g. B-M <1.5kW urban £4,930/MWh
when under the 3.5% scenario the figure is only £300/MWh)
Samples for the lead scenario:
PV (retrofit domestic 0-4kW) £365/MWh
Wind (1.5 - 15kW rural) £230/MWh
Hydro (1 - 10 kW) £170/MWh
