navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Wanted views on F.I.T's.......  (Read 8753 times)
Flamethrower_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 745



« on: August 19, 2009, 01:05:08 PM »

Just had this emailed to me anyone want to comment on it and reply to it......

Quote
19 Aug 2009


Dear Robert

I am writing to seek your views on the proposed rate of the feed-in tariff for existing generators. Our view is that, at 9p/kWh, it is too low, and thoroughly unfair to existing generators, many of whom installed their system in anticipation of the tariff.

I'd be interested to hear your views, and whether you have had any feedback from customers. I have already received a lot of worried and angry feedback from microgenerators who receive the YouGen newsletter. I plan to start a campaign to raise awareness of this injustice and lobby for an equal rate for existing microgenerators. This will launch in mid September (when I'm back from holiday!) and run to the close of the consultation period on 15 October. I am keen to identify suppliers and their customers who support the aims and would welcome your thoughts on the first rough draft of the campaign goals below:

Equal cashback for microgenerators

The Problem
The early adopters of domestic microgeneration are being treated unfairly and penalised financially in the Clean Energy Cashback (feed-in tariff) proposals.

We believe that:
•    The early adopters are pioneers who can take a lead in encouraging others to invest in microgeneration. The government plans discriminate against them (and reward those who have played safe and waited). This risks disillusion and anger from people who should be rewarded for the risk they took, for their contribution to the increased knowledge and for the carbon reduction that has resulted.
•    People have installed Solar PV on the understanding that a feed-in tariff was likely, not realising that they wouldn’t be included.
•    9p per kWh is extremely low. Depending on which energy provider generators currently use, this may lead to a cut in the cashback they receive.
•    The Renewable Obligation was complex and not suitable for microgenerators, so the Clean Energy Cashback should not be limited to those accredited under this system.
•    The government risks damaging the domestic market for renewable heat between now and when the detailed renewable heat incentive strategy is announced. If people see how existing microgenerators are being treated they may hold back on investing in solar thermal, biomass and heat pumps until they know they will be rewarded. Homeowners may also hold off from taking other vital energy efficiency measures in the hope of more incentive schemes.

We are calling on DECC to ensure that:
•    All existing microgenerators receive the same level of Clean Energy Cashback as those who install in the first year of its introduction.
•    Existing generators of renewable heat receive equitable treatment with new installations when the Renewable Heat Incentive is introduced.

Please also let me know if you or any of your customers are happy to talk to the media about your views, and/or promote the campaign to your contacts.

Kind regards

Cathy

Cathy Debenham
YouGen - renewable energy made easy



Visit YouGen at: http://www.yougen.co.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/YouGenUK
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cathydebenham
T: 01395 597879
E: cathy@yougen.co.uk

 
 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 01:08:03 PM by Flamethrower_ » Logged
petertc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541



« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 01:13:55 PM »

The only reason i can see for the lower rate @ 9p kwh, is  they think that every one has had a grant so should not be paid twice.

Surly they have all of the data required for having this rate for producers that have had a clear skies ( or what ever grant) and then the full FIT for those who had no grant and did things off of there own back.
Logged
wookey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3221


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 03:57:32 PM »

You can make a reasonable case for a somewhat lower rate than the FIT, in that what people expected to get for installation over the last couple of years has been the 18-22p or so that suppliers have been offering for exports, and as you say a cash grant was available. Also the whole point of a better incentive scheme is that it is trying to attract people who wouldn't buy at the previous price-point. It's a bit like a shop putting things on sale: you can't ask for half your money back if you paid full price last week and this week it is 50% off.

It would be interesting to know what fraction of existing microgenerators will get a lower income from 9p/kWh generated than they did from 22p/kWh exported. I'd guess they might actually work out much the same (CeeBee - you have beeter records than most)?

But I agree that 9p +£2500 grant compared with 34.5p/kWh for 20 years seems unfair, and I'd certainly be pretty grumpy if I was in that situation (fortunately I seem to have been slightly too slow). Especially bearing in mind that as part of the transitional arrangements it is currently possible to get both the LCBP grant _and_ FITs next year.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 08:32:37 PM by wookey » Logged

Wookey
CeeBee
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2009, 11:57:46 AM »

It would be interesting to know what fraction of existing microgenerators will get a lower income from 9p/kWh generated than they did from 22p/kWh exported. I'd guess they might actually work out much the same (CeeBee - you have better records than most)?

My first year of having the export meter: 1966kWh generated, 1525kWh exported. I expect that's a higher proportion of export than most people. And the current rate from SSE-related companies is 28p/kWh exported (but nothing else, i.e. no ROC payments). So I'd be far worse off. But I wonder - if/when FITs arrive - will all companies really pay exactly the FIT rate? That wouldn't leave much competition between them, so I wouldn't be surprised if companies offer different rates beyond what FITs offer.

Quote
Especially bearing in mind that as part of the transitional arrangements it is currently possible to get both the LCBPO grant _and_ FITs next year.

Still a bit of a lottery though, isn't it, when the FITs haven't been decided on. Must get round to sending in my comments on FITs. There's a consultation meeting in London next Friday, but I don't think I'll manage to go - in any case, it sounds as though it's just for speakers to tell the audience precisely what is already in the consultation doc. I expect the audience to be 99% reps. from the electricity companies, MCS, etc. on a day out. Agenda item "External Speaker: The MCS and how it can play a role" doesn't inspire confidence.
Logged

Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3908



« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2009, 10:29:58 PM »

But I wonder - if/when FITs arrive - will all companies really pay exactly the FIT rate? That wouldn't leave much competition between them, so I wouldn't be surprised if companies offer different rates beyond what FITs offer.

That's what I'm hoping. In fact, I think anything less would be considered anti-competitive.
Logged

Volunteer moderator
Ian
installers
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2009, 07:49:38 AM »

An existing PV customer of a few years asked what he should do with regard to registering with Ofgem for ROCs now but ahead of the FITs scheme becoming firm. He has a few kW of PV panels that were installed without any kind of grant aid and he has not bothered to register for ROCs so far - so he is invisible to the authorities at the moment. He is grid tied but, against my advice he has not informed his DNO that he is doing so, yet. The PV simply offsets against his utility consumption. He does have an approved total generation meter installed.

I follow the discussions about FITs and ROCs from a distance so I have a vague idea of what is going on and just enough info to "be helpful" to customers - but I have an overriding distrust of "authorities" and them helping the little man and try to keep a good distance between me and any of their “schemes”.

So, I started to tell my enquiring customer about the position regarding grants, schemes and potential for FITs, etc and then I realised that I was starting to waffle and did not really know the answer to his question....

So, do any of the avid "follower of authorities and legal stuff" forum members here (Ted comes to mind) have a view on what a house owner with PV installed without grant aid and not currently registered with Ofgem should do ?

Should he register with Ofgem forthwith or should he hold back until all the fog around the FIT schemes clears ?

Regards,
Ian
Logged
CeeBee
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2009, 02:20:28 PM »

So, do any of the avid "follower of authorities and legal stuff" forum members here (Ted comes to mind) have a view on what a house owner with PV installed without grant aid and not currently registered with Ofgem should do ?

Should he register with Ofgem forthwith or should he hold back until all the fog around the FIT schemes clears ?

In the end, you really have to read the consultation document on DECC's site.

It is clear what the proposals say at the moment (but of course they are only proposals - they might change, they might never be implemented).

They propose that generators which were operational at 15th July 2009 but which hadn't registered with OFGEM for ROCs before then will _not_ be eligible for FITs. Not sure where that leaves them. Still eligible for ROCs then? But they are trying to get small generators away from ROCs because of the admin.

Get your customer to read the consultation doc and respond to the questions if they don't like it. Then it might be changed. Could there be any _disadvantage_ to registering ASAP? All i can think of is that it might remove the possibility the person pretending that their existing system wa a 'new' one. I can't remember whether OFGEM care whether or not the DNO has been informed about the connection of generating equipment, but surely that's a legal requirement?
Logged

Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3908



« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2009, 11:13:48 PM »

I agree with CeeBee. Your customer is in danger of being in a position where he will get neither ROCs nor FITs. He certainly can't leave it and expect to register for FITs come next April (even if his system is MCS accredited - both panels and inverter and the installer) under the proposed terms he will not be eligible.

I would suggest he gets onside with his DNO and supplier immediately (this is a legal requirement) and starts the ROC registration process with OFGEM.
Logged

Volunteer moderator
sjaglin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2009, 10:56:37 AM »

Very good comments on this feed, I would urge people to sign the petition and contact their MP using the form :

http://www.yougen.co.uk/equal/

Stef
Logged

Ian
installers
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2009, 08:17:35 PM »

Thanks to CeeBee and Ted for the input. It is appreciated.

Regards,
Ian
Logged
Simon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2009, 04:16:48 PM »

I recently attended 2 seminars on the FIT consultancy document which had the objective of giving a response. The seminar was attended by various people from the Welsh Assembly Government (I live in Pembrokeshire) so we were able to give feedback to the civil servants who are close to the action. Rather than detail the response, the following link has the document

http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/en/forum/11-fits-and-rocs/12-consultation-response

Addressing one or two of the issues raised in this thread, I believe that the "big six" electricity generators will have to pay exactly the same FIT for the total generation you achieve. The export tariff will have to be a minimum of 5p per kWh but presumably they can pay more if they wish. At the minimum rates stated in the consultation document, it is in essence a zero cost to the electricity companies as they are subject to LEVELISATION which spreads the cost over all companies and will be passed on to all consumers as higher unit tariffs.

The question of the unfair 9p rate for existing installations was discussed at length and most people thought it unfair. The civil servants indicated, however, that the Governments objective was to encourage NEW installations and that fairness was not part of the remit.

The low carbon housing grants are still available until April 2010 so the best strategy seems to be to install a system now with the grant (up to £2500) and get FITs from 1st April.

The consensus view at our seminar was that as the Government has to get its skates on to get everything in place by 1st April, the consultation document will probably be substantially adopted.

I, for one, am in the process of getting PV panels installed noting that you MUST use a MCS accredited installer if you want to get the grant and receive FITs. Consequently I shall have to get an accredited contractor which is a pity as solar PV is probably easier to install that solar HW which I did myself.

Simon

Logged

20 tube Navitron Solar HW, 2.16kWp Solar PV, 7kW wood burner and insulation up to the ears, "Dolnet", Llanycefn, Pembrokeshire
Nicedad
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2009, 05:36:41 PM »

I have a small 690wp PV system which I installed myself. Both the items of kit (panels and inverter0 are non MCS compliant.

I'll thinking of having another small installation done using an MCS installer. Then power exported from both assemblies can receive FITs at this new higher rate. May have to hide connections from existing set up when the installers about.
Logged
StBarnabas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


St Barnabas Chapel (2009)


« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2009, 06:10:06 PM »

To my mind this MCS clause is unjust and anti-comeptitive. I wonder if there is some way to launch a legal challenge?   The StBC PV system would makre a good test case..
Logged


Gestis Censere. 40x47mm DHW with TDC3. 3kW ASHP, 9kW GSHP, 3kW Navitron PV with Platinum 3100S GTI, 6.5kW WBS, 5 chickens. FMY 2009.
Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3908



« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2009, 06:14:02 PM »

I'll thinking of having another small installation done using an MCS installer. Then power exported from both assemblies can receive FITs at this new higher rate.

Well, not strictly it can't. If you have a mixed system (installed over several years and part of which precedes FITs) then you should have separate total generation meters for each system. You would get 9p for the existing system (if it is currently registered for ROCs or zero if it isn't) and the full rate only for the new system.
Logged

Volunteer moderator
Nicedad
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2009, 07:02:24 PM »

As far as what registered its only the new system. Its just going to be very good at exporting if you understand what I mean.   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!