Publications & News
FIT Tariff ChangesChanges are proposed to all the
FIT tariffs. There are two consultation documents.
The first is for proposed changes to the solar PV tariff - see here. This consultation ends on 3 April 2012. The second is for proposed changes to the tariffs for all the other technologies - see here. This consultation ends on 26 April 2012. In each case a degression arrangement for the entire FIT-period is proposed. Below are the tables showing what the changes will be (in the case of solar there are three options moving forward). December Changes to PV Solar The changes to the FIT Tariff for solar PV proposed by Government for last December are below.  April Changes to PV Solar Further changes are proposed for solar PV from next July until the year end 2015. They are Option A or Option B or Option C – the resultants tariff tables are below. Option A  Tariff Pt 7: applies from 1 October 2014, or 2 months after total deployment since 1 April 2012 exceeds 2542 MW (whichever of these dates is earlier) Tariff Pt 8: applies from 1 April 2015, or 2 months after total deployment since 1 April 2012 exceeds 3542 MW (whichever of these dates is earlier) Option B  Option C  October Changes to Non-PV Technologies  Tariffs up to 2020  25
January 2012
|
Note: Previous News items below or click here
Articles & Blog
You can also read the articles below in our blog by clicking hereArticles published to date:
Previous News Items
Latest PV news... DECC loses appealChris Huhne on Court of Appeal
decision on Feed-in Tariffs
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said: "The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court ruling on FITs albeit on different grounds. We disagree and are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. “We have already put before Parliament changes to the regulations that will bring a 21p rate into effect from April for solar pv installations from 3 March to help reduce the pressure on the budget and provide as much certainty as we can for consumers and industry. “We want to maximise the number of installations that are possible within the available budget rather than use available money to pay a higher tariff to half the number of installations. Solar PV can have strong and vibrant future in UK and we want a lasting FITs scheme to support that future and jobs in the industry.” Read the press notice here 25
January 2012
|
Feed-in Tariffs updateOn
19 January DECC laid before Parliament draft licence modifications
which, subject to the Parliamentary process set out in the Energy Act
2008, makes provision for a reduced tariff rate (from 1 April 2012
onwards) for new solar PV installations with an eligibility date on or
after 3 March 2012 under the Feed–in Tariffs scheme (FITs).
Read the press notice here Read the full written ministerial statement on the DECC website here 20
January 2012
|
The Solar PV Appeal by DECCNothing has gone to
plan.
Friday 13 January was to be the day on which:
A decision is expected now on 9 February. A copy of the argument by DECC has been released here. 13
January 2012
|
News on Solar FITsJudicial Review and Appeal
On 21-22 December there was a judicial review hearing concerning the legality of DECC’s proposed reduction of the solar PV FIT tariff. DECC lost the case and (4 January) lodged an appeal. There will be two appeal hearings: one hearing seeking permission to appeal and, if leave is granted, one hearing for the appeal itself. The hearing(s) will be held on 13 January with the decision published on or about 20 January. If DECC wins, it aims to publish its response to the FIT consultation (which is the subject of the appeal) and the long-awaited Phase 2 Comprehensive Review (the review that will deal with everything other than solar PV) on or about 30 January. The Future for FITs DECC has said that the content of the Phase 2 consultation depends on the appeal and on how much solar PV has been installed since 12 December. What that means is that support for all the different technologies depends on how much of DECC’s solar PV budget is left and on how much DECC can ‘recoup’ from other FIT technologies. The Minister (Greg Barker) told Business Green that the budget for 2011-2012 has been exceeded; most believe it has been exceeded for the 2012-2013. The REA suggests this could mean the tariff for all post April 2012 PV systems will fall to 9p kWh (equivalent to 2ROCs). Supreme Court Appeal If DECC loses its appeal it may appeal to the Supreme Court. If it does so, timing is unpredictable: it would be a path-breaker appeal. 21p Tariff DECC has provided one bit of certainty in saying: “The tariff rate for PV installations less than or equal to 4kW will not fall below 21p for installations with an eligibility date between 12th December 2011 and 31st March 2012.” 6
January 2012
|
Delays to FIT Cuts?In
November two solar companies, Solarcentury and HomeSun, together with
Friends of the Earth, joined together as Applicants to seek judicial
review of the legality of the Government’s intentions to cut the FIT by
half as from 12 December.
Yesterday, 15 December, the High Court granted permission to the Applicants and, saying the case was urgent, has set a hearing date of 20-21 December next week. The judge hearing the application, Mr Justice Mitting, said the proposed cuts had given rise to “economic risk” for those engaged in the solar industry and the challenge should be heard as a matter of urgency. What is at issue here is timing: no-one has any belief that the tariffs can be made to change. As to the timing issues, they are:
DECC must be expected to appeal if it loses – and that will cause delay. Delay in cases like this is not helpful unless the provisions complained of are suspended. Could they be suspended? They could; but whether they will be cannot be predicted with any certainty. Government seems very determined about the cuts to this scheme. Its main justification is that we’ve run out of money. Just two weeks ago before the Energy & Climate Change Select Committee, Greg Barker, the Minister for Energy, said: “One thing I am absolutely sure …is that shifting the eligibility date to 1 April would be absolutely catastrophic”. “I have learned of numerous schemes that have had to be cancelled as a result of the review. Some of them are … very large schemes run by Social Housing… There is absolutely no way that this scheme could have coped with the volume of demand out there …” The best reasonably possible outcome to next week’s hearing is a fairly short delay to enable schemes that couldn’t make it under the wire by 12 December to get there by a slightly later date. For many schemes, that slightly later date is all the breathing space they will need. 16
December 2011
|
Solar PV Feed-in Tariff in ParliamentThe
Energy and Climate Change Select Committee and the Environmental Audit
Select Committee are preparing a joint report into solar feed-in
tariffs and DECC’s management of the scheme. It is likely to be quite
sparky.
The Committees, in considering all the obvious issues, invited written submissions and received a stupendous 61 responses. One submission referred to the ‘DECC policy of “watch and panic”’, a response that indicated the general tone of the written and the oral submissions. [Link] There have been two public evidence sessions. In the first, the Committees examined a number of solar companies and investors (HomeSun, Solar Trade Association, Bath and West Community Energy and Solarcentury). The evidence was fairly consistent that cuts could have been – should have been – made, but not in the way DECC managed them. The Committees then examined, rather snappily and suspiciously, two senior officials from DECC and the Energy Minister, Greg Barker. This little spat between Moira Wallace from DECC and Barry Gardiner from the Energy & Climate Change Committee indicates the underlying tone: Moira Wallace: I think you are assuming we are trying to mislead you and what we are trying- Barry Gardiner: That is not hard. Moira Wallace: I know that. [Link] On 1 December there was a further public session, examining Chloe Smith, Minister at the Treasury and Jonathan Mills, Treasury Director General, Energy, Environment and Agriculture. The Minister went out of her way to ensure the Committees knew that the budget, the changes, the figures and the future were all matters for DECC and none of these things were the responsibility of or could be blamed upon the Treasury. [Link] 13
December 2011
|
Impending Reports, Consultations, AnnouncementsDecember 2011
05
December 2011
|
More on the Cuts to the FIT for Solar PVSpeaking
at a conference today, a spokesman from DECC conceded that the original
modelling of the solar PV FIT scheme had been mistaken and that these
mistakes were the primary cause of failed expectations about the growth
of solar PV.
So far as the future is concerned, he elaborated on some of the points made in the consultation published last week.
09
November 2011
|
New Solar PV ChangesThe
FIT tariff is to be reduced again by half for some schemes; multi-owned
schemes will get a further FIT reduction and all buildings supplied
with solar PV must have energy efficient measures in place. The main
measures will be in effect by 12 December. The consultation ends 23
December. Click here for the DECC FIT Scheme
Consultation document and here for
the Impact Assessment
10
October 2011
|
New Solar RulesOn
18 October the new FIT Order that changes the rules applying to
extensions will come into effect. Fom that date onward it will not be
possible to treat two schemes built on the same site within 12 months
of each other as the same scheme so as to enable them both to get the
tariff available for the first scheme.
At
the same time (or earlier) we expect to be told the outcome of the
Comprehensive Feed-in Tariff Review – it was due to complete by the
year end. It is rumoured that the FIT tariff will change yet again.
That much is expected. What will matter will be when the tariff
changes.
Renewable Heat Incentive The
RHI is off, yet again and yet again it is due to be back on ‘shortly’.
If that is true it will be the first time in the history of the RHI,
which has been continually deferred until just some short time or
another for eighteen months. If it is to be back on soon it will either
be because the rules have been re-written to comply with EU
requirements (and got through Parliament) or because the Treasury has
backed down and agreed to the level of subsidies proposed. It has been
suggested that the RHI might be done and dusted by the end of November.
Who knows, it might: but that means the rules are to be re-written and
got through both houses of Parliament in six weeks. That might not
quite make the records, but it’s pretty tight. See here.
Renewable Obligation DECC
has announced that the level of the RO for 2012/13 has been set by
headroom and will be 0.158 ROCs/MWh in England, Wales and Scotland and
0.081 ROCs/MWh in Northern Ireland. See here.
10
October 2011
|
Our Response to the Consultation on a change to the rules on the treatment of extensions to installations under the GB Feed-in Tariffs schemeDo you agree or disagree with the proposal to take steps to amend the extension rules? We disagree with the proposals 1. We are disturbed at the manner in which DECC has approached amendment of the extension rules and it is that, the administration of policy rather than its formulation, that causes us most concern. 2. Although that is so, we are of the very firm view that changing the rules so soon after the start of the FIT scheme will have - and already has had - a substantial and adverse effect on investor confidence. 3. We believe that this situation of regulatory risk is significantly worsened by DECC's reasons for the change. 4. DECC's reasons are set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying the Consultation. 4.1. Paragraph 22 of the Evidence Base of the Impact Assessment outlines the savings to be achieved by the proposed change: "DECC estimates that around eight projects are currently contemplating making use of the loophole, amounting to around 40MW of large scale solar. If the 8 projects are originally built at 100kW each, then avoiding their extension to 5MW each would save approximately £190m (2011 prices, discounted) in resource costs over the 25-year lifetime of the projects." It is noteworthy that "resource costs" is defined by the Impact Assessment as the costs to the economy of deploying solar PV as compared to the costs of deploying gas CCGT. The comparison one would normally expect to see in such circumstances – especially when trying to maintain investor confidence the renewable power sector – would be another renewable or low-carbon technology. 4.2 The Impact Assessment notes (at Analysis and Evidence) that one of the effects of denying entry to just eight 5MW schemes is to create the need to buy EUAs, thus making clear that there will be, as a result of Government action, a gap between outturns and the UK targets. "If fewer installations are able to exploit the extensions loophole, this could lead to lower carbon savings. Based on eight 5MW projects exploiting the loophole, closing the loophole would mean the UK needing to purchase approximately £10m worth of EUAs (2011 prices, discounted) over the 25-year lifetime of the projects." 5. The conclusion to be drawn from these extracts is that we are being told very clearly that whatever energy policy the Government holds itself out as promoting, that policy is liable to short-term changes for reasons entirely unrelated to it. Indeed, it tells us that such changes may be made even if they run counter to the policy. 6. The Impact Assessment has a little to say about investor confidence – far too little and far too complacently, in our view: 6.1 it states (at Analysis and Evidence): "Amending the extensions rule may have a negative impact on investor confidence" 6.2 it also states at paragraph 17: "There is a risk that the proposed amendment to the extensions rule will have a negative impact on investor confidence." 7. We see no evidence at all that any attention has been given to the issue of investor confidence. The references to a loss of confidence that "may" occur and to the "risk" of loss of investor confidence are dismissals of an issue that ought to be centre stage in any government’s assessment of changes its proposes to make to its policies. The Consultation requires consultees to provide reasons for their claims: we would wish that obligation to run in both directions. Q2: Do you agree or disagree with the way in which it is proposed to change these rules, as set out in the draft amendment to Article 15 of the FITs Order? We disagree with the way DECC has so far approached the proposed changes to the rules 1. Generally The manner in which DECC has set about changing the rules to the FIT scheme from the outset has had the appearance of being haphazard, with decisions appearing to be made on the hoof and announcements made but not followed up or announcements not being made when they should be. DECC's manner of dealing with the entire issue up until it began to deal with the extension rules was immensely unhelpful to developers and investors and it must just be assumed that its capacity to deal with such issues was at an all-time low. But its dealings with the proposal to amend the extension rules introduces regulatory risk at a serious level. 2. Government Promised No Retrospectivity 2.1 In March 2011 DECC published the document Consultation on fast-track review of Feed-in Tariffs for small scale low carbon electricity (Fast-Track Consultation) announcing that the FIT tariff for 50kW plus solar PV schemes would reduce and the change in law would be effective on 1 August 2011. The document asserted at paragraph 11: "As the coalition has repeatedly stressed, the Government will not act retrospectively and any changes to generation tariffs implemented as a result of the fast-track review will only affect new entrants into the FITs scheme. Installations which are already accredited for FITs at the time the changes come into force will not be affected." 2.2 This insistence on there being no retrospectivity was first made by the Minister Greg Clarke when, in addressing the House of Commons in November 2010 he said: "we will not act retrospectively". 2.3 It was made again, as indicated above, in the Fast-Track Consultation. 2.4 It was made later as an addendum to the announcement in June of the Government's decision following the closing of that consultation: "the proposed changes to tariffs would apply to all installations with an eligibility date (as defined in Condition 33 of the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences) on or after 1 August 2011". 2.5 And it appeared, importantly, in paragraph 3.1 of the Treasury's document The Control Framework for DECC levy-funded Spending: "The Government remains committed to maintaining support levels for those existing investments where it has said it would do so and not to making retrospective changes." 2.6 We were, we believed, entitled to believe there would be no retrospectivity because Government promised us so again and again. 2.7 We were wrong and the Government misled us. The race to close off a loophole at the point at which it must have been apparent to everyone that investment has been made on a considerable scale – the race to prevent that investment being anything other than wasted – is very effective retrospective action. 3. Government Is Acting Retrospectively 3.1 On 11 April 2011, there were discussions with OFGEM about the application of the extension rules under Article 15 of the The Feed-in Tariffs (Specified Maximum Capacity and Functions) Order 2010 (FIT Order). Confirmation was being sought of the viability of using the Order to build small-scale schemes and extend them within twelve months to benefit from the existing FIT Tariff. OFGEM provided that confirmation and, in doing so, made plain that DECC was quite aware of what they both seemed to call the ‘loophole’. 3.2 It has become plain to us that other investors and developers were, both earlier and later than this, holding discussions with OFGEM on a range of regulatory issues specifically connected with extending schemes after the 1 August deadline for the reduced Feed-in Tariff. We believe we are justified in concluding that as a result DECC knew of these discussions and knew of the proposed use of the extension rules – that is to say, that DECC believed a number of developers were aiming to extend schemes in this manner as early as April and perhaps earlier. Perhaps we can put the point more bluntly: we know that DECC knew; Ofgem made that plain. 3.3 At the time at which the Government announced changes to the FIT Tariff – i.e., when it announced the reduction in the solar PV returns – then, at that time, when DECC knew about the extension rules and knew about the proposed use of the extension rules by developers, if it had intended to make changes it should have made them then. Developers and investors were entitled to conclude that it would have made them then. Or were we to conclude that the department whose main task was renewable energy policy somehow overlooked such a significant issue, even though it knew of it? We would find such a conclusion impossible to draw. 3.4 Despite this, DECC claimed as late as 22 July to have had no knowledge of the intended use of the FIT Order. It announced in the Impact Assessment (under Interventions and Options): "Since announcing the outcome of the fast track review, there has been evidence that some large scale solar PV developers are intending to use provisions in the FITs legislation on the accreditation of extensions to installations, in order to take advantage of the current tariffs beyond 1 August 2011. This was not the intended effect of the extensions rules and is inconsistent with the objective of the fast track review. These provisions effectively create a loophole which, were it to remain open, would have a considerable impact on the FITs spending envelope and the integrity of the scheme, undermining the intended effect of the fast track review. Government intervention is therefore necessary to address this loophole as soon as possible." We find the implication of this as unlikely as that the Government never intended the use of solar PV for large-scale schemes, which it clearly did: that evidence was with DECC as early as 11 April and quite possibly earlier. 3.5 See also, importantly, paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 below in which it is made clear that DECC has no intention of adhering to its promise that no change would be retrospective. 3.6 Had DECC taken steps to close the loophole at the point at which it first learned of it or had it announced that it would do so and the conditions under which it would do so, investors and developers would have been on notice as to the nature of the risk they ran. Most would not have taken that risk. Most would have exited the market at that time. We are among those who would not have invested in any standalone solar PV projects. Government simply had to deal with the information then in its possession and not act retrospectively. 5. DECC's Intentional Creation of Uncertainty 4.1 From time to time during June DECC officials appeared not to believe that the extension rules would change. There is evidence that comfort was provided by senior DECC officials that it would not amend the extension rules. 4.2 But on 20 July an email was sent to a small group of people from two trade associations reporting that DECC had advised them to advise their members that the loophole would be closed off. There was no public statement, no indication of what would be changed or of any means to achieve the change. Those who were not members of the trade associations or who did not have contacts who were members would have been unaware of DECC's intentions. 4.3 On or about 22 July a consultation was published by DECC announcing its intention to close the loophole “as soon as possible”. At the time of publication it is reported that the DECC website contained a statement as to the date the amendment would become effective: that was 31 October. The Impact Assessment contained a similar date. 4.4 It is reported (in a recent conversation between a senior DECC official and another that the date was subsequently removed from the site. The Consultation made clear what was to be changed (Article 15 of the FIT Order) but it did not indicate any timescale. Thus although it appeared at the outset that the Secretary of State had taken steps to make plain what the law was to be and from when, the removal of that date and, some ten days later, the localised emails, muddied the law again. 4.5 On 2 August the two trade associations again sent an email to their members saying that they had discussed the timing issues with DECC. That email contained quotations from various emails with DECC lawyers, one of which indicated: • that the changes might be introduced by a procedure that did not involve being laid before Parliament when in session; • that they could, if they wished, count the days on which it was laid before Parliament as not merely including days when Parliament was not present, but including weekends, too; and • that the Ministers might introduce it with no time for it to be laid before Parliament, with the consequence that it would be in effect immediately. T The lawyers also indicated that although it was a “convention” that any minimum period required was 21 days, it was ‘merely’ a convention and might be disregarded. Constitutionally, the latter is a disturbing position for a British government to adopt. 4.6 On 11 August, with the assistance of the Green Economy Team at BiS, the timetable was clarified. It appeared that it was to be entirely ad hoc and entirely determined by how many schemes had applied to Ofgem for accreditation. If too many applied (i.e., if the DECC PV budget was likely to be exceeded) emergency legislation might be rushed through – but if fewer completed the process, the more usual timetable would be applied. This is a very clear instance of retrospective action. 4.7 By muddying the legislative timetable and contemplating the use of enmergency legislation, DECC is making the application of the law uncertain, and it would seem that it is intending to do so – and further undermining investor confidence. 5. Changing The Facts In pursuit of its intention to keep solar PV schemes below a certain level, the Government seems intent to re-write its own legislative history. In the 14 July debate in the House of Lords, Lord Marland indicated that it had never been intended that solar PV should be large scale. Lord Whitty demurred, saying that he had been involved in the last government in the FIT scheme and that they had specifically wanted to encourage large-scale activities. 6. The Amendment Proposed 6.1 DECC has made it plain that it wishes to adjust Government energy policy to limit the subsidy costs of the renewable budget. 6.2 It is quite apparent, as Lord Whitty says, that the larger schemes are more cost-effective and, as the MInister Greg Clarke recently noted in a speech, solar has a bigger role to play than he had envisaged 6.3 It is also apparent that current Government action will have a substantial effect on investment. The finance community has already over the last year or so - and more pressingly in the last months - made it plain that Government energy policy is at an investment crossroads as a result of the sheer amount of regulatory uncertainty it has introduced. The nature of this particular uncertainty – that the tinkering is ad hoc, that it runs counter to Government energy policy, that the rules are applied in an uncertain way and that, as a result, going forward there is nothing in energy that can be viewed as certain – all this makes the regulatory risk of the recent actions of DECC foolhardy. 6.4 As to the alternative means of dealing with the issue, it is noteworthy that it has arisen because all subsidy budgets were not subsumed into a single budget by DECC at the time of the Spending Review and that it produced separate budgets for the FIT and for the (underspent) ROC regime. Government seems intent as a result of hanging onto a separate Renewables Obligation budget, whilst appearing to seek its gradual replacement by a FIT regime, of changing its mind about what was presented as a fundamental direction for its policy. Modification of the basic budget, combined with a properly-managed timetable and a properly-organised plan, would have avoided much of the mess that now confronts it. Making those changes now will go some way to ameliorating the worst of what DECC has brought on the Government and the renewable energy sector. 8
September 2011
|
New Solar Rules – Yet Again!Last week a sorry little note was produced by a couple of the renewables associations saying that they had been told, on what appeared to be a no-names basis, that DECC had told them – and told them to tell their members - that it was about to change the law to choke off the capacity of solar schemes to build extensions after 1 August and retain the pre-1 August tariff level.It appeared to be news to the associations that DECC had known about this ‘loophole’ for a considerable time. This sort of behaviour by DECC is unusual, or worse. DECC has now published a ‘consultation’ confirming the underhanded rumours, saying that they aim to close off the ‘loophole’ as soon as possible. For the consultation, see here. Clearly what DECC intends is to lay an order before the two Houses of Parliament when they reconvene on 5 September. The procedure to be followed is ‘negative’, i.e., the instrument becomes law if it is not objected to by either House in a 40 day period. The Lords may not object (it is a matter of the constitution). We can predict the Commons won’t. On 15 September each House goes into recess for more than four days (the Commons is in recess until 10 October and the Lords until 3 October). The rule is that the 40 day period needs to run when Parliament is in session and is suspended during periods of absence longer than 4 days. 27
July 2011
|
Creating and managing a demand side responseA paper based on a presentation given in March 2011 by David Tolley, DLT ConsultingCreating on managing a demand side response - click here.26
July 2011
|
Energy White PaperThe Electricity Market Reform White Paper has been published: Click hereIt is accompanied by the Renewables Roadmap: Click here Allen Overy also have an article: Click here 18
July 2011
|
FIT Reduction Confirmed – and Expansion Prefigured!Minister of Energy Greg Barker has announced the new rates of FIT tariff for solar PV and anaerobic digestion. From 1st August 2011, new entrants into the FIT scheme will receive amended tariff rates as originally proposed in March:Solar PV: >50 kW – ≤ 150 kW Total Installed Capacity (TIC) - 19.0p/ kWh >150 kW – ≤ 250 kW TIC - 15.0p/ kWh 250 kW – 5 MW TIC and stand-alone installations - 8.5p/ kWh Anaerobic digestion: ≤ 250 kW - 14.0p/ kWh >250 kW – ≤ 500 kW - 13.0p/ kWh The press statement included the following claim: “Without urgent action, the scheme would have been overwhelmed within a very short period of time”. That was the reason we were given for the change in the first place. See: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/fit_review/fit_review.aspx Despite that, on the day he announced the solar FIT cut Greg Barker is reported by the Guardian as saying "I'd like to be able to be more generous with the large-scale projects, but I've got £860m from the spending review … so the focus of the current scheme needs to be on the small scale, to get the maximum number of installations. But we now need to think creatively about how we can engage commercial-scale solar as a more important part of the energy mix … we've got to find additional pathways – and that means changing the way that solar is perceived in the department." One wonders exactly who it is who runs energy policy, since it clearly isn’t the Minister. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/03/solar-energy-greg-barker. 9
June 2011
|
[ Return ]
Can you make money while saving the planet?A presentation describing practical issues between you and a profit from a 1MW (preferably) renewable scheme - click here.2
June 2011
|
[ Return ]
Energy Market ReformThe Select Committee on Energy & Climate Change has just published its Report on Electricity Market Reform (Links: Vol. 1, Vol. 2).Its main conclusions are:
16
May 2011
|
[ Return ]
Stop Press – Judicial ReviewAt the last count 11 companies had combined to apply for judicial review of Chris Huhne’s decision to have an early review of the FIT (feed-in tariff) as it relates to solar PV. More are expected to join, or to consider joining.See these articles for a breakdown of the details: > Businessgreen.com 'Solar firms file judicial review feed-tariff cuts' > Guardian.co.uk: 'Solar legal action feed-in-tariffs' > Farmersguardian.com: Solar companies to challenge subsidy review in court' 16
May 2011
|
[ Return ]
Budget ChangesCarbon Price Floor: to be introduced from 1 April 2013 at “around” £16 p/t following a linear path to £30 p/t in 2020.Climate Change Agreements: To be extended to 2023. The Climate Change Levy discount will rise from 65% to 80% from April 2013. There will be a consultation on simplification proposals this summer. Carbon Reduction Commitment: Allowances will be £12 p/t CO2. Draft regulations for allowance sales will be published later this year. 24
March 2011
|
[ Return ]
Feed-in Tariff ReviewProposals to reduce the financial support available to larger scale solar-produced electricity have been published by the Government today.• Press notice • Proposals Renewable Heat IncentiveThe Renewable Heat Incentive has been published.> Download a copy here > See the new tariff table here > Compare with the old tariff table here See this month’s article for an assessment 18
March 2011
|
[ Return ]
Fast-Track Solar ReviewIn November Greg Clarke, in talking about solar photovoltaic projects, informed the House of Commons that “large field-based developments should not be allowed to distort the available funding for roof-based PV”. He announced a review to rectify the situation inherited from the previous government - but failed to say when it would take place and exactly what its subject matter was to be.We have now been provided with the answers – DECC today issued a press statement entitled Huhne takes action on solar farm threat in which the Secretary of State for Energy, Chris Huhne, announced that the review had started. The review will, it seems, be in two parts. More precisely, there will be two reviews.
07
February 2011
|
[ Return ]
Fundamental Market ReformThe proposals for market reform fall in four parts: carbon price support, a capacity mechanism, feed-in tariffs and an emissions performance standard. Treasury is dealing with the first of these, DECC with the remainder.The Treasury consultation ends 11 February, the DECC consultation 10 March. The main consultation papers and some key commentaries can be found at the links below.
03
February 2011
|
[ Return ]
Further Delays to the Renewable Heat IncentiveThe Renewable Heat Incentive was due to be published on 10th December. Then it was due to be published before the end of the year – and, not long afterwards, by early in the New Year. The date has slipped again and we now expect it to be published in early-to-mid-February.The problem seems to be the inability of different government departments (DECC and DEFRA) to agree on air quality provisions and, specifically, on the limits to place on emissions from biomass plants. It seems unlikely that this can be agreed and provided for in the detail needed in the next 2-3 weeks. Leaving to one side issues concerning technical measurement of biomass emissions, the timetable itself forms an obstacle to clear and speedy resolution:
11
January 2011
|
[ Return ]
The Renewable Heat IncentiveWe were led to expect publication of the government’s conclusions on the RHI scheme on 10th December (and we had reasonably hoped for them around about the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review).We continue to be disappointed: we now cannot expect them until “early” in the New Year. The continued delay is troubling.
22
December 2010
|
[ Return ]
PV Field Array and Rooftop SchemesOn 11 November the Energy Minister, Greg Barker, told the House of Commons that PV field arrays were distorting the solar market. He said:“We are absolutely committed to solar PV and to the widest range of domestic and community-scale renewables, but the fact is that we inherited a system that simply failed to anticipate industrial-scale, stand-alone, greenfield solar, and, although we will not act retrospectively, large field-based developments should not be allowed to distort the available funding for roof-based PV, other PV and other types of renewables. “ Since making that statement, government has been active – talking to developers and trying to find a way to cap the scheme so that it will remain within the limits agreed with the Treasury at the Comprehensive Spending Review. Assurances have been given that field-array schemes already in place will be unaffected. Those being developed run the risk of a cap being imposed before completion and thereby of failing to qualify for FIT payments. Other solar developments also appear to be under discussion and it is being said both that the review of the 2013 FIT scheme will be brought forward and that these different PV applications may also be capped. In consequence and until government publishes its conclusions (due before the year-end), the time for developing these schemes with any degree of certainty is being treated as if it were relatively short. |
[ Return ]
The CRC Energy Efficiency SchemeThe CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme - previously known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment - came into effect in April 2010 and requires all affected organisations, including those listed below, to register by 30 September 2010, failing which they will be fined.
DECC Guidance: Click here (opens in new window) EA Guidance: Click here (opens in new window) |
[ Return ]