Hi Paul,

I feel the same as you. The proposals have not considered the full implications for existing installations very well at all. The consultation requires the largest possible response from owners to let DECC know what is wrong.

I am currently putting responses together over at www.navitron.org.uk.

Jerry Clark is including a discussion about feed-in-tariffs in the Autumn edition of GBM. He will be glad of this feedback and it would be interesting to hear more peoples opinions.

My personal opinion though is that 'pioneers' should never plan on or expect compensation at a later date.

It would be nice to thank the pioneers for breaking new ground, and paving the way for the rest of the general public.
What about their investment of time and money in fighting planning appeals and making local Councils sit up and take notice?
The free advertising/publicity from having the technologies installed?
The creation of a sense of familiarity for the general public rather than the strange new thing in their area?
The s**t they had to put up with from NIMBY's to make life easier for those that follow their lead in the future?
Their commitment to investing in renewable technologies to encourage 'Green Collar' businesses?
Their continuing support provided to interested enquirers/wellwishers/callers to promote the technologies?

It's a bit like starting a new business and charging your first few customers 3 times more than everyone else.

Posted By: GBP-KeithMy personal opinion though is that 'pioneers' should never plan on or expect compensation at a later date.

It's not a question of planning on it or expecting it, but of saying "Thank you and well done for leading the way, and here is your reward for your hard work and foresight - for making it easier for the rest of us, and for helping to sustain and promote these types of businesses when others doubted them."

I have sent my opinions to DECC - has anyone else done so yet? Basically, most of the document looks fine except the level of generation tariff set for existing installations - this is way too low. I suggested 20p for PV's - I suspect it may need to be lower for wind, and/or larger PV systems, but I don't see why a sliding scale can't apply to older systems in the same way as to new one's.

I would give my opinion of the proposed new FITs scheme as suggested in your REFI document. Firstly, I am in favour of most of the contents. The major exception is the level of generation tariff offered to pre-existing installations. I would like to point out the difference in the length of payback time on my own system as proposed, and if I had waited until now.
A worked example follows based on this years generation of 1850kWh:

Based on the prices in in the table on page 83, I will receive 9p/kWh for everything I generate, and 5p/kWh for half of what I generate (supposed export). This leads to the following:

17.6p/kWh (dual meter daytime rate) on 925kWh/year = £162.80

9p/kWh (feed-in-tariff based on total generation) on 1850kWh/year = £166.50

5p/kWh (export tariff based on 50% of generation) on 925kWh/year = £46.25

This gives a total saving of £375.55 a year. If we divide the net cost of the system (£8315 after deduction of grant) by the annual savings, the payback period is around 22.1 years. We have to bear in mind that the tariffs will be set and will not increase in value. The only change which could reduce the payback time further would be an increase in the price paid for imported power.

If I had installed the system after the proposed scheme was running, the figures would look like this:

17.6p/kWh (dual meter daytime rate) on 925kWh/year = £162.80

36.5p/kWh (feed-in-tariff based on total generation) on 1850kWh/yr = £675.25

5p/kWh (export tariff based on 50% of generation) on 925kWh/year = £46.25

This would give a total saving of £884.30 per annum. If we divide the total cost of the system (£10815 with no grant deducted) by the annual savings, the payback period would be around 12.2 years.

Now, at risk of the sour grapes epithet, I don’t think the proposal is all that fair on those of us who stuck our necks out and installed systems previously. Obviously, accepting that there will no longer be a grant, the generation tariff needs to reflect that for those of us who benefitted in this way, but 9p is just too low. I would suggest somewhere around 20p would be more fair – this would make my payback period about 14 years, still longer than if I had waited, but at least nearer the mark. Perhaps even different rates depending on your type and size of installation for existing systems would be a better idea, as the table suggests for new systems.

Unless this was not carried through, this was the intended support for micro-generation (i.e. below 50 kW):

'Microgeneration: we have decided to reduce the complexity for microgenerators that would have been implied by a banded and grandfathered system. All microgeneration stations (50 kW or less) will receive two ROCs per MWh, regardless of technology. Microgenerators will be excluded from any grandfathering provisions placing all microgenerators in this band irrespective of when their plant was installed (including the circa 200 stations accredited in 2006). We also commit to retain this level of support following the first scheduled banding review, planned for 2013. (Paras 2.28 to 2.29)'

TWO ROCs per MWh!, regardless of technology, no matter when the plant was installed. Has this not come to pass? Gov response to RO consultation.

You can download it from:

http//www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43545.pdf

D

2 ROC's per MWh has come in since April 2009 for generators under 50kW.
That is why the price has increased from 4.5p to 9p per MWh - the ROC is still valued at £45 but you get two ROC's for each MWh generated = £90
(if this had not happened I would be losing money now, but that's another story)

I still haven't read the consultation document, I really must get round to it.

What about this election promise? http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1427/Conservatives+support+fair+treatment+for+all+microgenerators/

There are now a number of companies offering free panels and installation and the promise of saving you hundreds of pounds per year.

Example http://www.isis-solar.com/

Seems too good to be true but I can also see how it makes sense for the homeowner and how it is a good business opportunity for these firms. What are the downsides?

Are changes ahead for FITs sooner rather than later.