Along with my latest FIT Levelisation (?) Invoice for the last quarter came a letter announcing the introduction from next March of a charge for actually processing the FIT claim. They say that since OFGEM have reduced their contribution towards the cost of processing these, my FIT licensee will have to charge £75 annually (index-linked) if I wish to stay with them.

Has anyone else had anything similar or heard any rumours about OFGEM removing their subsidy?

Hi Keith - it is the trading partner of my electricity provider, not the provider itself. I'll call them to see if they are trying to unload the job of administering the FIT payments as it doesn't pay enough to be worthwhile (like insurance companies put in high quotes when they are trying to reduce a particular market share without making it too obvious)

The 'levelisation' word has me baffled, too. It seems to be Tradelink Solutions own term, although its meaning escapes me, as the payment is simply for the last quarter production - why it needs 'levelling' is a puzzle.

Levelisation - Meaning of. Extract of OFGEM webpage

LinksOfgem > Sustainability > Environmental Programmes > Feed-in Tariff scheme > Levelisation

All licensed electricity suppliers (regardless of FIT participation status) are required to make payments into Ofgem E-Serve’s levelisation fund, based on their market share of the Great Britain electricity supply market and any FIT payments made to accredited installations under the FIT scheme. The fund is then redistributed to FIT licensees that have made more payments to accredited installations than they would be required to by their market share contribution. Currently this process occurs on a quarterly basis.

So now we know!! Presumably this redistribution of the fund is what is to be ceased, leading to increased costs for some suppliers.

If you check the OFGEM list of Fit Licensees, there seem to be quite a few small outfits working in a similar way. My supplier is LoCO2, and the FIT Licensee is Tradelink Solutions. I can stay with LoCO2 and change licensee if I choose.

I've not heard of any major changes to the FiT levelisation process, only some small tweaks. It certainly can't be dropped as it is needed to buffer incomings/outgoings for all FiT Licensees.

There is an admin fee that the FiT Licensees get paid for running their part of the system. DECC decide what this fee is each year (on a per FiT system basis). Mandatory FiT Licensees (the Big 6) get paid slightly less than the Voluntary Licensees and they both get a higher figure for the first year of registration.

I suppose if your FiT supplier is unhappy with the admin amount they are being paid then they are free to charge their customers to cover any perceived short-fall just as you are free to switch supplier.

Hi Windy Lamb - the charge is not being imposed as I have to agree in writing to it if I want to stay with them. I was curious to see if this is going to be widespread, but it appears to be up to each FIT Licensee to decide. I'll be moving provided I can find another one with no or lower fees willing to sign me up.

There not that many FIT Licensees if you check the list. All the big boys are there, but there a re a few I have never heard of before.

As far as I see it, there are two separate entities. One is the electricity supplier, in my case LoCO2, and the other is the FIT licensee, again in my case Tradelink Solutions. As my existing supplier, LoCO2 gave me the contact details for TS after I installed my solar PV array, but I could have chosen my own FIT Licensee - it was just easier to follow their contact details.

It seems to be only my FIT Licensee at the moment who wants to charge a fee for the admin of the FIT claims and payments, but I suspect there may be small print in any FIT agreement giving the Licensee the option of charging if they wish - it's a sensible clause to protect against any policy change.

I'll check the other thread on good prompt-paying FIT Licensees and sign up with another before next April, when the fee is due to start

Is there a difference between (IIRC what Ted said) mandatory licensees and voluntary licensees, when it comes to them changing their terms of business?