Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Should We Get Togther And Make A Community Response To The Fit Consultation?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 mikesharp01

mikesharp01

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationKent

Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:06 PM

Hi All.

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.

#2 lifemoveon

lifemoveon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • LocationBirmingham

Posted 14 September 2015 - 10:24 PM

That will be great! I could also help with contributions if required.

#3 mikesharp01

mikesharp01

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationKent

Posted 15 September 2015 - 07:16 PM

Ok, thats two of us - now we need to energise the rest of the community, anybody else up for preparing a response or would rather we, as a community did not make a response?

#4 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 15 September 2015 - 07:19 PM

I am willing to support this idea.

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.

#5 mikesharp01

mikesharp01

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationKent

Posted 15 September 2015 - 09:58 PM

Yep - thats the way they do it, they want two things, first an easy statistical outcome they can put in front of ministers. So the more people who answer the questions the better. They frame the questions to help them there but they also allow, need if you will, to ensure that they haven't missed any opportunities so they give respondents the freedom to respond more widely in longer form or attach more detailed / nuanced answers to their questions. Thats where the most power is for the individual while for the large community who can get hundreds / thousands its responding to the straight questions that counts. They even use the number of answers to the different questions to gauge how people feel in general about aspects of the proposals, so if all respondents answer Q1 but only 10% answer Q4 they figure that concerns for Q4 are less. Simple enough you may say but when the Q4 affects a a smaller number of people / organisations the results can be skewed. However - the clever (larger) pressure groups work on balancing responses so as to ensure that their needs are best served so they might ask their respondents to only answer Q4 - by telling them its the most important because they know that by this mechanism they can make Q4 appear stronger (get more hits without pushing the hits on Q1 up). Obviously Q4 has to align with their desires and they have to be big enough to make a difference - but you would be amazed how small some of the respondent pools are for these consultations.

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.

#6 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:15 PM

View Postmikesharp01, on 15 September 2015 - 09:58 PM, said:

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.

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!

Rgds

Damon

Edited by DamonHD, 15 September 2015 - 10:17 PM.


#7 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 16 September 2015 - 08:17 PM

Got a very long way to go on that one :(
https://www.gov.uk/g...Statistics.xlsx

#8 MikeGraham

MikeGraham

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • LocationSouth east

Posted 16 September 2015 - 08:41 PM

Do remember who is in government at the moment before committing too much time to this, they tend to, and have in the past just done as they want. It would be great to see the FIT stay, and see far more solar deployments, but I think their new replacement in the eyes of this government at least is fracking, not exactly microgen,but the government see it as self sufficient for the UK as a whole, which is fair play I guess, and we should all benefit from low stable gas prices

#9 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:54 AM

It will make not a jot of difference to gas prices; there is an extremely liquid international market and we won't have enough new supply to make significant difference. It only really reduced prices in the US because the bastion of free trade that it claims to be deliberately banned/frustrated exports.

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.

Rgds

Damon

#10 mikesharp01

mikesharp01

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationKent

Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:37 AM

Tend to agree Damon, price will only reduce with competition so other sources of energy - such as a hearty PV sector, will make a difference. If we degress at the rate HMG wants we stand a chance of leaving ourselves open to a gas / large electricity generator supply monopoly. For me its just the degression rate that doesn't fit the facts and I think if we all shout and show how a slower degression will have cost benefits, even in the short term, we might have an impact. Mike I am not sure I want to assume that they won't listen as I know that even the hard liners I have dealt with in the past have listened to well focused and soundly argued ideas. Particularly if you can give them the chance to say - "we asked you said and we did what you asked so we listen" in the house of commons and at the same time they can show that it didn't cost too much cash or political treasure.

#11 MikeGraham

MikeGraham

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • LocationSouth east

Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:44 AM

I didn't say it would make them cheaper, just that they would remain low but more stable ;-)

#12 recoveringacademic

recoveringacademic

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,343 posts
  • LocationLancaster, Lancashire

Posted 17 September 2015 - 06:58 AM

View Postmikesharp01, on 17 September 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

For me its just the degression rate that doesn't fit the facts and I think if we all shout and show how a slower degression will have cost benefits, even in the short term, we might have an impact. [...] Particularly if you can give them the chance to say - "we asked you said and we did what you asked so we listen" [...so...] they can show that it didn't cost too much cash or political treasure.

If we don't shout, we will certainly be ignored. I'm in.
Ian

#13 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:01 PM

Would we feel the same if they were cutting the RHI by the same amount?

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.

#14 mikesharp01

mikesharp01

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationKent

Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:27 PM

Ok, thanks for this guys, I will try and put together a quick and dirty briefing on the main points and share it around to see what we all think.

#15 lifemoveon

lifemoveon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • LocationBirmingham

Posted 19 September 2015 - 08:45 AM

Thanks so much Mike.

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.

Cheers.

#16 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 19 September 2015 - 01:24 PM

FWIW, I just signed this as I think it basically a statement of facts/concerns and not bashing anyone:

https://petition.par...etitions/106791

Rgds

Damon