DECC launch FIT review

[Gavin A]

we need to be a bit careful on this, as we don't want to present a dataset that contains a lot of systems with power reducers or we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I can sort the data I have to split it into power-reducer and none power reducer units, but I don't seem to have anywhere near as many systems online as I expected. Possibly we have a load to be added.

I'll see if I can get an open google docs spreadsheet sorted out to collate the data from different people, it looks like we're going to be best getting the data from individual installers so they can determine which have power-reducers (or similar) and which don't.

---

I've just had a meeting with a PhD student from a research group from the energy research institute at Leeds Uni. Looks likely that we'd be able to work with that team in some capacity to add credibility to this data / produce a report on it.

 

[Gavin A]

I think we need to work up an initial strategy to work out the key areas that we can challenge, and data required to challenge it.

I suspect that those of us at the sharp end have direct access to the sorts of datasets, costsings and spreadsheets that the trade bodies and campaign organisations don't, so that's probably where our initial focus as a small group of installers (and suppliers) should lie.

If we work up a small list of key targets, and how we're going to tackle them, then we can then liase with STA and others (I'll be working within the Green Party) to inform them of what we're doing so they can build that work into their strategy and build the wider campaign.

I think we're only going to change the policy if the industry can create a fairly united front on this, present credible arguments backed up by credible research data, and produce a credible alternative proposal to either achieve similar overall budget cost reductions, or make a clear case why not.

My personal bottom line target with this is the CFD strike price agreed for nuclear. I think a very strong case can be made that export payments should be guaranteed at the same level as has been agreed for nuclear, and if they want to reduce the budget, then that reduction should come from across the board via the cfd strike prices, not from the FIT scheme alone. I haven't run the figures yet, but I suspect that most generators would be better off with CFD pricing on exports and no FIT than they would with a 1.6p FIT and 4.6p export.

I'd also prefer a shorter FIT payment term with higher rates to the current situation. These proposals are so low that the admin costs paid to the operators are going to exceed the FIT payments for a lot of people.

 

[whinmoor]

Interesting research - good work. Here's another idea. Take a look at number 4 on this page:

https://ashadegreener.co.uk/myths/

Now, these guys cherry-pick the best 4kWp properties and never fit hot water gadgets (to my knowledge). So, the information from their 50 import/export meters might be useful.

I don't know if they would be able/happy to share their anonymised data? Their business model is totally screwed if this proposal is introduced so they might be prepared to co-operate?

 

[TedM]

I've just had a meeting with a PhD student from a research group from the energy research institute at Leeds Uni. Looks likely that we'd be able to work with that team in some capacity to add credibility to this data / produce a report on it.

I think this is very important. It is one thing to present evidence, it is another entirely to produce evidence that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Gavin A]

I'm dangling the carrot of hopefully getting some MCS funded research work on evaluating the performance estimation methods in the longer term.

 

[SibertSolar]

Shorter FiT payment term was proposed before wasn't it? Somewhere around 7yrs?

I'll provide whatever data/costs I can, I'll see if I can get details from our client base.

I'll also talk to a few contacts I have in the smart-metering field - might yield some useful info.

Where does encouraging self-consumption and less grid-reliance come into this though? Is that not a consideration?

 

[whinmoor]

Interesting blog article from Chris Sutor. Certainly the more positive opinion I've heard about this:

All Eco Energy Ltd | The Blog | Latest Solar PV News

 

[Gavin A]

Where does encouraging self-consumption and less grid-reliance come into this though? Is that not a consideration?

at the moment the key thing is to gather data to refute the self consumption assumption made by PB when determining what FIT rate was required.

Beyond that, yes the market will be for those systems with the highest self consumption levels, but to maximise the market potential we need to either get the FIt raised, or increase the export rates to the CFD rates for nuclear, or aim for net metering and no fit.

 

[Gavin A]

I've requested a meeting with the Green Party's energy spokesperson when he's in town this weekend to set the ball rolling to get a commitment to put an EDM before parliament - aim would be to get that to be jointly drafted with the STA, then once that's in place get STA members and anyone else we can get to lobby MPs to sign the EDM.

May as well get something useful out of the otherwise largely wasted effort I put in to the Green party election campaign.

 

[The Solar King]

There is one other major and fundamental flaw in the data on energy costs. DECC are using tariff comparison rates that roll in the standing charge. This is clearly nonsense. You need to look at the cost per unit without the standing charge. Standing charge is a constant and should be removed from the calculation.

 

[The Solar King]

Have been sitting in all afternoon on a meeting of the STA. One thing is completely clear. Arguing about the technicalities of the consultation at this stage is re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We will, further down the line need to know exactly what the industry's policies asks are.

Everything at this stage has got to happen at a political level. Unless sufficient space can be created to actually have that debate and get movement, the scheme will close at the year end due to the rush in deployment. As soon as I have a list of tangible actions everyone can take to support this I will post them here.

Be aware that a broad alliance is being built to defend FITs for all technologies. Also be aware that even if there is a successful breakthrough, there will still be a significant cut in tariffs.

 

[TedM]

I think all those are 'givens' with the political climate we find ourselves in. DECC have plenty of experience in how to ignore consultations. Showing DECC that their data is rubbish is likely to invoke the 'close all FiTs by January' nuke response.

In any case, here is the evidence we were looking for and it comes from DECC themselves and their NEED project statistics:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ty_use_in_households_with_solar_PV_panels.pdf

It shows (at Table B.3) that installing PV (size unspecified but not over 4kW) showed a decrease in electricity consumption from 5200 kWh to 4300 kWh, but the control group also showed a drop from 5200 kWh to 4700 kWh over the same period. This indicates that only 400 kWh of the drop is attributable to the installation of PV. For a 4kWp system in the South of England this would be about 10% of generation with the balance, 90%, being exported. Even for an atypical 2kWp system it is still only 20%.

Table B.4 shows the same thing after applying various weightings - a 400kWh reduction for a PV household over and above the drop seen in the control group.

Sample size was 1,900 households across England and Wales.

 

[TedM]

Feeding that into my spreadsheet model of how the proposed FiTs is calculated puts the required tariff at 6.9p rather than 1.63p - assuming export is still paid on the 50% deemed basis.

 

[The Solar King]

Trust you used the DECC figure of 16.3p/kWh for electricity and the Parsons Brinkahoff hurdle rate of 6.3% and the given cost of £1700 per kW installed regardless of system size up to 50kW.

These are all arguments for later on. At the moment all that can be meaningfully said is the data and assumptions used are highly inaccurate and in several cases spurious.

 

[TedM]

I've used the PV hurdle rate of 4% as per 5.14 of the IA document.