DECC publish Renewable Energy Strategy

[rob26440]

(seriously... there's must be something I'm missing?)

My (jaundiced?) take so far:  In government terms, "Simple" and "Bureaucracy" is an oxymoron.  Therefore, by definition any scheme will be complicated and will require lots of administration and will create jobs for civil servants and camp followers.   ("Civil Servants"... isn't that another oxymoron?)

The more I read and hear about the proposed scheme, the more I am put off building a grid tied system - which I was hoping to do in the next couple of years - assuming the overall £/watt for PV comes down to a realistic level.  In the mean time it's a battery bank and inverter to power a few selected items.

I hope some common sense (there's another oxymoron) will be injected into the scheme before it is too late.

My thanks to the people who have posted the excellent summaries and discussion points so far.

[Richard Owen]

Civil Servants"... isn't that another oxymoron?

It should be a tautology.

Disappointedly ................................

[Nicedad]

I too would lose out on this as I have yet to register.

Its also not much of an incentive for me to undertake phase 2 and build the single axis tracker part to improve the efficiency and go into export mode more.

That said I have noticed that I am actually unofficially exporting at the moment as the incoming meter rotates backwards and not just the few revolutions as seen by others.

Have to stop and think now before spending more money. 

[Paulh_Boats]

It sounds like there are at least half a dozen of us that will loose out.....and probably a lot more lurking on the sidelines who have not posted a reply.
Quite a few of us also have expansion plans - I could almost quadruple my kWh generated if I covered the entire roof.

So I think we should stick together with a common voice ready to take on the Government.

-Paul

[Ted]

I agree. I think the thought that has gone into producing a system that gives fair treatment to existing owners has been absolutely minimal. For example, there is nothing that covers the person in the situation of wanting to incrementally upgrade their PV over a number of years - whether they have already started or are still in the planning stages.  I can't see anything that addresses that scenario.

The argument might be that taken overall this would only apply to a very small percentage of total installations but I see it as a valid point to make none the less.

This applies especially to someone with a current system that is not registered for ROCs.

The FITs system should not be so one-sided, in order to promote new installations, that people with existing systems effectively get penalised.

Please take the time to respond during the consultation period with your considered comments.

[wookey]

There is clearly room for improvement here on what to do about existing installations, but before we all get too grumpy; do remember that a) this is a huge improvement in terms of promoting PV RE, and many of us have been asking for FITs for some time so we shouldn't moan too much now the govt have agreed to finance/run them, and b) people who already installed under existing/previous schemes _did_ decide to do so under the situation pertaining at the time. If things change such that installing a new system becomes a better deal, then more people will install them (which is kind of the point). "your investments can go up as well as down". There is no real reason why the govt should have to incentivise people who've already installed. This is the same 'unfair' dynamic pricing that we have all got used to for planes, feries and trains (which can also be much more complicated than seems necessary).

On the other hand I'll be as annoyed a the next man if DIY is excluded, and actually making existing people _worse_ off than they expected seems a step too far, and will simply lead to a lot of silly de/re-commissioning if the difference in incentives is large enough.

So, 2 cheers for major step in the right direction. Lets see if we can get the most egregious parts of this fixed - that's what consultations are for.

There is a real danger that due to faffing about for a extra year I will find myself in a much more comfortable place than StBarnabus. That doesn't really seem right.

There is too much negativity here, for what is ultimately (overal) a very positive change. You try being the govt for a few years and see how you like it :-) It's much harder than it looks.

[Richard Owen]

I've skimmed some of the documents looking for the role of communities in the mix of individuals, communities and industry.

Although there's an example of a town in Germany with a community scheme, the detail in the documents seem to suggest that communities role is in helping schemes through planning, commenting on siting and other peripheral involvement.

Has anyone spotted anywhere where it actually states HOW a community scheme might actually operate and interact with the proposed system?

Thanks,

[Paulh_Boats]

I see your point Wookey......but I'm not expanding from 3 panels to 11 panels without FITs...even though I have enough cash in the bank.


Market forces should apply - tax dirty electricity, pay PV energy suppliers extra....initially a lot more then taper down to standard PV rate after 10-20 years.  Existing grant installations stay on standard PV rate.

-Paul

[fje-iptelenet]

I have similar size system (2.34 kWp) as CeeBee installed in March 2007 with a 50% grant. I have joined SE in March 2009 and get £.28 per kwh exported. The system generated 2290 kWh last year and I estimate the annual export to be 1700 kWh which translates to £476.00. I'm happy with that. Under the new FIT system using Ted's calculations for CeeBee's system the revenue would be reduced to £281.00 more or less the amount of my annual import. Existing early adopters are being penalized - No surprises there! I can't wait for elections being called, so that I can vote with my feet - The current lot has to GO! Perhaps am I to optimistic?

CeeBee:
Have you been in touch with SE for their views/intentions? If so send me a PM or respond here on the forum.

Ted:
Concerted effort is required to make FIT's a fairer system with regards to existing installations. A well drafted sample letter exposing the unfairness of the proposed system, published here, would help people not so familiar with DECC's documentation such as myself.

Apologies for the rant in the first paragraph as some of you may not agree with my views about the party currently in power here in the UK.

Regards,
Franz

[CeeBee]

...Existing grant installations stay on standard PV rate.

I think, owing to UK having started off with a quarter-baked scheme which it's now trying to fix, that it's not as simple as that. "Grant" can mean anything from 50% of a large amount (a few years ago); a capped £2500 (more recently) which is only a small proportion of the cost; no grant at all for anyone who might have installed at the times when the Low Carbon Buildings Programme randomly turned off the tap; and situations where people might have used up the grant-cap on other technology (say a heat pump, which doesn't even feature in FITs yet) and so got no grant for their PV. And don't forget that a condition of getting the grant was to have high levels of insulation everywhere, modern heating controls, low energy light-bulbs everywhere - which of course makes good sense, but all uses up money - how does this figure in the FITs system?

I signed up knowing I could get 18p/kWh exported from Ebico via SSE. It's increased twice since then, no doubt partly due to doubling of ROCs, and is presently on 28p/kWh. I think it was a reasonable assumption that this wouldn't decrease. And that's what we don't know. What will the supply companies do to attract people? They'll have enough on their hands dealing with people on all kinds of different FIT rates (installed in difference years, different technologies, etc.), so who knows what they might come up with for other renewable generators.

And I still worry about the 'OFGEM' (or other similar body) role in this. As the discussion docs says, there will be a central registry of all installations. How is this magically to come into being next April, when OFGEM will presumably still have their backlog of uncompleted accreditations, non-working website, ROCs which they haven't yet managed to award yet, etc.

I see Franz has posted while I was writing: I will at some point email SSE. I email them occasionally explaining that I still haven't appointed them as ROC agent because OFGEM are still messing about. Luckily SSE don't seem to mind - they just say to transfer any ROCs to them if/when I get them. I fully expect SSE will be unable to make any comments on what their future plans might be, but it will still be worth drawing their attention to the issue - presumably they (and other suppliers) are themselves very interested in the FITs consultation because of the implications for their business.

[Richard Owen]

I can't wait for elections being called, so that I can vote with my feet - The current lot has to GO!
<snip>

Apologies for the rant in the first paragraph as some of you may not agree with my views about the party currently in power here in the UK.

Regards,
Franz

In which case Franz, I think you need to start lobbying other political parties who might have a chance of forming the next administration, Not sure their plans for FITs etc are particularly marvellous.

[Paulh_Boats]

I have joined SE in March 2009 and get £.28 per kwh exported.
Franz

How do you get 28p?...their site says only 18p including ROCs:

http://www.southern-electric.co.uk/Help/ForYourHome/Microgeneration/SolarPVTariff.aspx

-Paul

[CeeBee]

How do you get 28p?...their site says only 18p including ROCs:

http://www.southern-electric.co.uk/Help/ForYourHome/Microgeneration/SolarPVTariff.aspx

That's just due to their apparent inability to update their website. I wouldn't be surprised if it says 28p on somewhere else, or then again maybe not. As I said, 18p is now twice out of date.

Ebico have got it right http://www.ebico.co.uk/html/c_microgen.php (it's the SSE tariff they are talking about).

[Ted]

There is too much negativity here, for what is ultimately (overal) a very positive change. You try being the govt for a few years and see how you like it :-) It's much harder than it looks.

Wookey, sorry if I sound too negative. I'm really pleased that it appears that new MCS accredited installations will get paid sensible amounts for what they generate. That's definitely a good thing and a major step forwards.

I'm much less pleased about how non-MCS systems and existing installations will get treated and I think DECC need to seriously rethink their approach to this, as well as how incremental installs get treated too.

[Ted]

Ted:
Concerted effort is required to make FIT's a fairer system with regards to existing installations. A well drafted sample letter exposing the unfairness of the proposed system, published here, would help people not so familiar with DECC's documentation such as myself.

I've started discussions with the other Mods as to how best to manage this.