DECC launch FIT review

[Gavin A]

Arguing about the technicalities of the consultation at this stage is re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

I'd disagree. DECC have convinced themselves, based on the PB research, that these tariff levels are sustainable and do achieve the minimum IRR returns that they view as being viable, and that's their justification for setting these levels.

It's an absolutely vital first step to clearly and definitively refute the assumptions used, and demonstrate that even if we were to accept their logic of a 4% IRR being acceptable, that these figures will not achieve that, and they really do risk killing the entire domestic solar PV market completely.

This will also be crucial for briefings to MPs on this.

Not that the rest of it isn't important, but I don't see that any of us here are in a position to do much of that stuff, whereas we are in a position to provide this sort of ammunition that STA etc can use to bolster their case. STA itself doesn't really have the resources or direct access to the information needed to do this level of detailed work to refute their consultant assumptions.

Unfortunately the STA blew a lot of credibility in 2012 by arguing that the fit reduction to 21p was unsustainable and would kill the industry entirely, when those of us with direct access to the costings etc were able to work out that actually this wasn't the case at all, that it'd be tough but we could make it work. STA were proved to have been wrong in their predictions then, and DECC will use this to discredit anything they say unless it's backed up by hard evidence that they can't refute.... boy who cried wolf stuff basically, not that they're crying wolf now, but that because they did it before without properly assessing the situation, their word is good for nothing now.

I think we should take note of Greg barkers comments on this as well, that the industry needs to propose credible alternative solutions to this backed up by hard evidence. Bluff and bluster got us nowhere last time, it'll achieve even less this time. This time they really have actually screwed up the data and assumptions, so we can actually nail them on these points to undermine their case, and set the ground for whatever alternative proposals the industry comes up with.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[The Solar King]

Gavin

The technicalities have some importance, but the reality is this does not appear to be about money. The issue is not DECC, it is the Treasury and government ideology. Just compare statements from Amber Rudd only a few weeks ago about a solar revolution and the fact the consultation was launched whilst she is on holiday. There are FOE requests out for the data on which several calculations are based, most importantly that of the calculation of the Levy Control Framework overspend. If you want to spend your time on figures, this is the one to go after, as it appears to be based on inaccurate historic data.

The consultation is a stitch up. Yes, it is important to know the detail of DECC's inaccuracies. Had you picked up that the 11.3% load factor used equates to an output of 990kWh/kWp?

It is very easy to criticise but far harder to do something. Everyone has been repeatedly caught out by the fall in equipment costs and increases in installation efficiency. As far as the STA are concerned everything now used comes from an economic model that has been peer reviewed by Imperial College. If you have read the Solar Independence Plan you would see how this had been used to map a path to zero subsidy for all sectors by 2020 had the right support been in place.

In terms of DECC's position and the credibility of trade bodies, you will be unaware of the amount of background work that has gone on with DECC in the past to try and avoid the very problems you highlight. Would you rather the BPVA were leading on this?

However, here is the rub. Imagine you had one minute in a lift with David Cameron in which to persuade him to drop the proposals and save the industry. Spending that time talking about how inaccurate the level of export used in calculations or anything similar is hardly going to cut it.

Many people will be talking to MPs who are less than sympathetic. They will be more interested in issues such as how many hundred jobs will be lost in their constituency, or how many hard working families who are saving up for solar will be deprived of the opportunity. By all means provide evidence that the consultation is based on inaccurate data, but how interested are they going to be?

You are right to highlight the need for solid policy asks, which is exactly what I highlighted a couple of posts ago. Accuracy will be important but once the horse trading starts it would be of little relevance. Remember, the level at which the LCF was set came about by a similar process on a Friday afternoon between the Lib Dems in DECC and the Tories in the Treasury. It had little to do with accurate data. How ever good the data is, it will not necessarily be believed. If it was, we would not have had the content of this consultation.

There is much going on to raise the profile of this as at the moment, as it is a dead issue in the press, which is why it was launched at this time of year.

I would also urge everyone to sign the petition on the Parliamentary website (now at 6753). https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106791 Please do not get hung up about the wording of this or even think about starting another one. The whole point is simply to get this to the 100,000 level which ensures a Parliamentary debate.

As I have more helpful information, I will post it.

 

[Gavin A]

If STA doesn't recognise that they are in a boy who cried wolf scenario though, then I really fear that this campaign will go nowhere.

It's not about being caught out by the fall in prices, I and many others had run the figures in the autumn of 2011 and come to the conclusion that actually we could make those figures stack up. STA either didn't have that data, or ignored it, and were proved hopelessly wrong when the dust settled.

They are starting this campaign therefore with very little credibility in government eyes, they can only regain that crediblity by having a campaign that is backed up by robust figures, starting with a robust critique of the government's own figures.

I well understand how lobbying works, and no I'd not go in to a meeting and start it with the detailed figures, but what I would do is to go into that meeting armed with a report that clearly presented a detailed rebuttal to the governments figures, and alternative costed proposals, so that when the MP says 'ok please send me some more information about this' you've actually got something credible to send to them. Otherwise the MP only has the government's research to base their opinion on, and we'll get nowhere.

There are FOE requests out for the data on which several calculations are based, most importantly that of the calculation of the Levy Control Framework overspend. If you want to spend your time on figures, this is the one to go after, as it appears to be based on inaccurate historic data.

That's definitely a figure that someone should be targeting, but it's not something that we as installers have any special information or data on.

We do have data on the self consumption levels, so we can target that - and to be clear, the impact of them getting that wrong on the FIT levels they then recommend is absolutely massive. As Ted's figures show if the self consumption levels were in line with DECC#s own previous research, then the FIT rate would need to be 6.9p / kWh.

ie the area of the report that we're discussing and have identified that we as installers have access to data to refute, has the potential to cause the FIT rate to need to be raised to 4 times the proposed level in order to achieve the results that DECC says it want's to achieve.

That right there is grounds for judicial review, and also something that is at a level that can easily be explained to MPs and the public, and they might not take kindly to being misled in this way by DECC either.

 

[The Solar King]

If you had actually bothered to become a member of the STA I could take your arguments on credibility and other issues more seriously. Spending time contributing in working groups would have meant anything of value you could have contributed would have added to the sum of the whole, but despite invitation you chose not to. I don't have time for bickering amongst ourselves about others opinions on history. It will not solve the problem.

Everyone including DECC has access to the data you are referring to. They have chosen not to use it. Be aware DECC's lawyers will have crawled over everything to avoid being caught out as they were in the past.

You are entirely missing the point. Go back to meeting David Cameron in a lift.

 

[Gavin A]

so only STA members get to have an opinion?

I'll work with STA, but not under them, as frankly I don't see that they've had the best interests of small solar installers at heart over the last few years at all, nor that they really understand the sector or the situation, and certainly don't appear to have been very effective. Their strategy at the last cuts nearly cost me my business, so I don't really see why anyone should be expected just to bow to their strategic genius.

As I've indicated I intend to work mostly on this via the Green Party campaigns teams, where I'd hope to be working in partnership with STA. The Green Party can actually get early day motions into parliament, which at the point of the SI being laid before parliament is actually the only way of guaranteeing a parliamentary debate on it, so I think that this approach adds some value to the STA campaign.

I was actually thinking about joining the STA to bolster their campaign, but frankly this sort of attitude is what puts me and others off joining, like only those who've 'bothered' to join should be entitled to having a say. Perhaps the STA could have 'bothered' to properly engage with our sector.

and no, decc don't have access to the data I'm referring to, if they did they'd not have been relying on a sample of 11 installations to give them the self consumption figures. Neither do STA, though once collected I'd intend to supply it to them in a format they can hopefully use.

 

[Gavin A]

btw to be clear, I've in no way been attempting to dictate what STA should be doing, merely suggesting actions that we as installers with access to specific datasets could be doing ourselves directly to provide STA and others with information that they can then use to refute elements of DECC's case.

 

[The Solar King]

Gavin

Not trying to fall out with you. We all want the same thing. Green Party should be part of overall alliance of many groups joining together to fight this. A lot is already happening on this front

Regards

 

[Worcester]

I know the facts are important and will need to be presented, however, those of you / us that have at some time or other been involved in a campaign to get what seems a forgone decision changed will also know that two campaigns are needed.

1) Get all the facts and figure to beat up the backroom boys
2) a 'Hearts and Minds' campaign

1) is clearly going on, the question is which public figure can we get on board for 2) - the hearts and minds

This latter campaign is equally if not more important to get the parliamentary debate going and it needs to address fundamental failings of the current and new policies. In other words it needs to address the political issues.

Such as:
Where's the strategic plan to meet CO2 emissions
Where's the plan to meet the renewable energy targets
Removing the Public participation (roof top solar) how can they engage the public to buy into the policies
Destruction of an industry employing x0,000 people that will be downsized by 80%
Point to the real success to date and the REAL cost to households so far
Bring up the subsidies to non-renewable technologies
....
...
(Brain not working atm..)

I'm sure there are even other policies / changes that need to be challenged and engaged; the question is who can be brought on board to be the public face of this campaign? - So far I haven't heard a squeak from the opposition, I know they're busy trying to find a leader, however their job / role is to OPPOSE, I believe even one of them has pointed that out.

We also need high street newspaper coverage of the issue, IF it is to be successfully challenged, else we're just doing work to make ourselves feel good that we're doing something.

So, who's our William Wallace?

 

[TedM]

Camila Batmanghelidjh? I believe she isn't doing much else at the moment. :joker:

But seriously this is one of the main problems for renewables. There simply isn't a single 'go to' celebrity style person, whose name would be instantly recognised and trusted by 90% of the population, presenting a face to the public. That seems to be the only thing that gets peoples attention these days. I'm talking of someone like, say, Stephen Fry - who has no interest in renewables AFAIK. The problem being that renewables is techy and statistics and nuts'n'bolts and, therefore in the public eye, boring.

qv - look what Joanna Lumley did for the Gurkhas.

 

[Worcester]

Two Bikes Jeremy Corbyn !

Just now on BBC's Car Share program with the prospective Labour Leaders, when asked "What would a Corbyn Britain look like?", his first response wrt employment was

I want to see investment in Green Energy Jobs. (Got the news channel on in the office foyer )

BBC Two - Victoria Derbyshire
BBC iPlayer - Watch BBC Two live starts at 10:39, mentions green jobs at 10:43 (am)

This could be quite a good opportunity for him to bee seen as mainstream as well as very left wing...

 

[TedM]

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...otectingOurPlanet_JeremyCorbyn.pdf?1438938988

Using a politician to capture Hearts and Minds isn't quite what I was thinking. Leading with a politician can automatically lose you support from everyone who does not already support them.

 

[Worcester]

Hi Ted,

I understand your point, the challenge at this time though is to get through all the human interest news stories, and bring this issue both to the public and also to challenge the government publicly. Ast this point It really doesn't matter who does it so long as they have a voice that will be heard.

 

[The Solar King]

Here is one I made earlier. This is the same analysis from the consultation permed every possible way.
Makes quite interesting reading. Problem is clearly not FITs. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[whinmoor]

Someone like Nick Ross?

Nick Ross Endorses HIES Scheme | Nick Ross Endorses Scheme

 

[whinmoor]

Or how about Kate Humble?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZC6KKCPtCY