Should We Get Togther And Make A Community Response To The Fit Consultation?
Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:06 PM
Having ploughed through entries elsewhere in this community I have just read the governments consultation document on the proposed changes to get the whole picture. As is normal with HMG, individuals and groups can make responses, have done this for several things in the past and they do have some effect particularly if well argued, strongly evidence based and backed up with counter proposals if possible. So there are tricks to making responses but, as I have said elsewhere, if we stick together and act as a small pressure group with real data we have a chance of moving things in the right direction (how many members does this community have - 700 is it and I bet most of the would agree this needs some action). It looks like that for small producers <= 10Kw (not 4Kw as now) the generation tariff (from 12.7p to 1.63p and then sliding down to 0p by Jan 2019 - through degression [the decrease in rate of degressive taxation]) is the one getting hit but the export tariff is staying as it is. Using the governments own figures it is clear that small domestic systems are not the problem they have and they even say that they see these installations as being the best route to meeting targets. So I guess one argument we could usefully have is to show how the proposed generation tariff for small installations is too tight and is likely to discourage rather then continue to encourage. They also want to make some changes to the MCS scheme where again our input on small scale installs might have value and help our cause particularly to get people like BC to sign off installations rather than have to get a scheme sign off - HMG like competition in the market so lets give them the opportunity to engender some more.
Anyway I would be happy to help with a community response if people feel its worth a try.
Posted 14 September 2015 - 10:24 PM
Posted 15 September 2015 - 07:16 PM
Posted 15 September 2015 - 07:19 PM
BUT I tried answering their survey myself, and it was worded so badly (or is that so cleverly?) that you had to try and answer hundreds of specific questions on specific issues of the proposed change in turn.
I lost the will to carry on, it was well beyond tedious.
Posted 15 September 2015 - 09:58 PM
Anyway what is your view, one sentence will be enough to add to the melting pot of ideas, and we will see what we can do to make a response from this community.
For my part, the big picture need is to adjust the balance of this proposal so as to ensure that the degression path more closely mirrors the cost reductions as the technology improves. I think they have this wrong for a number of reasons but mainly they just don't understand supply and demand in investment incentivised markets.
Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:15 PM
I think that (1) you are probably basically right (2) the sudden change will simply give lean SMEs in this area whiplash again and probably kill them (3) it will save little money even in the short term and (4) clearly the Treasury is doing all the things it wanted to before the election but Ed Davey et al resisted.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that some possibly-significant adjustment, even with cries of dismay from those with skin in the game, reaches an optimal result (viability without subsidy) sooner and with final total expenditure lower than at current rates and digression, BUT changes of this speed are very very unlikely to give an overall better outcome I suspect. Participants of all sizes will be spooked again and we'll be worse off as a country.
Besides, I just want 30GW+ of PV in the UK, no excuses!
Edited by DamonHD, 15 September 2015 - 10:17 PM.
Posted 16 September 2015 - 08:41 PM
Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:54 AM
We'll need gas for a while, and I have no particular objection to fracking if done carefully, but arguments based on price are just wrong.
Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:37 AM
Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:44 AM
Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:58 AM
If we don't shout, we will certainly be ignored. I'm in.
Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:01 PM
I also seem to remember that part of the price of FiTs was to give a return of around 6%. Not sure of this was written in law, or just an interpretation of what actually happened. May be worth looking at as part of the financial argument.
Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:27 PM
Posted 19 September 2015 - 08:45 AM
Yes, i think it will be great if we come together and voice our concerns. However I also think we should put forward a credible proposal that will benefit most people so that we can be taken seriously.