Latest on the court challenge!!!

[Gavin A]

I'm pretty sure you're right mdovey.

I'd also support any move to get FOE, solar century etc to drop their case so we can all get on with installing at 21p without all this uncertainty. Anyone who can't make 21p make financial sense for their customers is doing it wrong IMO, but the major problem is the confusion caused by the court case, along with the woe is me headlines from Friends of the Earth. The thing that might kill this industry off is further delays that mean we all run out of cash while waiting for the courts to make up their minds.

Also, if we do get another rush for 43.3p til 3rd March, the only thing this will do is increase the further cuts that are apparently being planned for April and July (according to BPVA).

 

[finchy]

The thing that might kill this industry off is further delays that mean we all run out of cash while waiting for the courts to make up their minds.

Gavin A - perhaps that's Solar Century's et al objective, to reduce competition !

 

[TedM]

The energy efficiency conditions are proposed to apply to all buildings, not just domestic. But the EPC C may be the method for domestic only and some other criteria used for commercial.

Sections 75 and 76 of the consultation doc covers it.

 

[whinmoor]

Wonder what happens if you're a farmer installing on a barn. Have to insulate to keep the cows warm? There might be a dangerous build-up of methane!!! May improve milk production though.

 

[Gavin A]

The energy efficiency conditions are proposed to apply to all buildings, not just domestic. But the EPC C may be the method for domestic only and some other criteria used for commercial.

Sections 75 and 76 of the consultation doc covers it.

oh. it seems that is what was in the consultation.

seems utterly nuts to me - what's the point of having a well insulated but unheated barn / warehouse / factory unit none. But these are also often sites with both high daytime electricity consumption, and huge roof spaces.

can someone please pass DECC a map showing them the location of both their arse and elbow, and explain the difference between the 2 to them (one they use to talk out of etc)

 

[mdovey]

I presume that ground mounted systems are exempt from the EPC requirement. I'm not entirely sure what insulation is needed to bring a field up to EPC C!

 

[mdovey]

I'd also support any move to get FOE, solar century etc to drop their case so we can all get on with installing at 21p without all this uncertainty.

It would be good to get everything resolved - however, I'm not entirely sure that the current uncertainty is bad for business.

DECC has been pretty clear that the FIT for current installations will not be less that 21p. They made a statement to this effect early in Jan. The motion before parliament is to introduce a 21p rate from 3/3 at the latest, etc.

So anyone ordering now will either be

a) someone happy with the 21p rate (who may get an unexpected bonus if DECC lose the court case)
or
b) someone taking a gamble on DECC losing the court case (who will be miffed if DECC win, but can't blame the installation industry in that case)

If FOE et al. were to drop the case, it wouldn't change those orders in category (a) but there wouldn't be orders from those in category (b). So overall, with the court case still in the balance, there should (in theory) be slightly more orders coming through than without the court case.

If DECC lose the case, there may be a slight flurry of orders to beat the 3/3 deadline. I doubt it will be anything like the November rush since many of those who wanted panels at the 43p rate did managed to get them installed and there may only be 3-4 weeks between a final decision and the 3/3 (less if DECC appeal to the supreme court).

On the other hand, there may be some still holding out since they just don't trust the politician's assurances on the 21p rate (which is understandable in the circumstances), and if DECC win the case, there may be a sudden flurry of cancellations (particularly those still in the 7 day cooling off period).

Any victory from FOE etc. will be a pyrrhic victory since from 1 April we will see the 21p FIT rate plus any EPC conditions DECC is minded to implement, and it seems likely that there will be faster reductions in FIT after April, but it is important that the government should not be able to set an implementation date before the end of a consultation period (not just DECC and FITs).

 

[pjcomp]

I presume that ground mounted systems are exempt from the EPC requirement. I'm not entirely sure what insulation is needed to bring a field up to EPC C!

It's the property benefitting from the power that must be EPC C, not the panel mounting ...

PJ

 

[mdovey]

It's the property benefitting from the power that must be EPC C, not the panel mounting ...

I wasn't being entirely serious - that said, the above is common sense, which seems in short supply from DECC at the moment...

 

[SolarCity]

I would call on FOE, Solar Century etc to look at the bigger picture. They already have the moral victory and they could not have envisaged the current circumstances and I am sure it was never their intention to cause harm to the solar industry.

I would argue that they are looking at the bigger picture. This isn't just about getting a bit of work in in the next few weeks, this is about an incompetent fool utterly undermining an entire industry. If Barker and his number fudgers lose this case then they should lose their jobs and we should bring someone in that understands the green issue and the solid base that an industry needs.

Just because the DECC and the half-soaked judges can't decide what they are doing any quicker, this does not seem like a good idea to give up on something that is entirely right.

 

[SolarCity]

Anyone who can't make 21p make financial sense for their customers is doing it wrong IMO

I agree that it works on directly south facing unshaded roofs as long as the system size is >3kWp. However, I think we all know how rare that particular case is. Add any kind of losses into it and it is far too difficult to sell.

10 year paybacks are ok, but anything above that and the customers faces drop.

 

[finchy]

I agree that it works on directly south facing unshaded roofs as long as the system size is >3kWp. However, I think we all know how rare that particular case is. Add any kind of losses into it and it is far too difficult to sell.

10 year paybacks are ok, but anything above that and the customers faces drop.

We are working to get under 10 years, its not feasible over 10 years most warranties run out past 10 years ! Its basically us installers being squeezed in the middle.

 

[The Launderer]

I would argue that they are looking at the bigger picture. This isn't just about getting a bit of work in in the next few weeks, this is about an incompetent fool utterly undermining an entire industry. If Barker and his number fudgers lose this case then they should lose their jobs and we should bring someone in that understands the green issue and the solid base that an industry needs.

Just because the DECC and the half-soaked judges can't decide what they are doing any quicker, this does not seem like a good idea to give up on something that is entirely right.

I completely agree that it's not just about getting work in the next few weeks. I also agree that in the circumstances bringing the Government to court was probably the right thing to do. But, the prices of materials have dropped significantly, installers are more competent and can install with lower costs and in my opinion 21p is a rate that works.

My worry is that if the government lose this case they will cut the FIT rate again from 1st April and/or implement the EPC rating system in such a way as to make it impossible for the Solar industry.

A negotiated settlement is the best way to conclude the current court case. The people bringing this matter to court did so with the best of intentions but the only benefit I can see in continuing the case is to moderate the future behavior of the government. Giving the lucky few a 43.3p tariff and up to a 16% ROI is only going to use up the available cash quicker.

Today they may have an opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength. Once the appeals procedure is exhausted they will have no negotiating strength to use to make sure our industry continues after 1st April.

 

[Noddy67]

I'd agree with Biggs Solar: If you're thinking long term about this industry you don't walk away from the court action for the sake of a few days/weeks. That's counter intuitive.

1. DECC has got a bloody nose because of its actions - thanks to the people who bought the case. If the industry had backed down before DECC wouldn't hesitate to do it again (and again) to us and similar industries.

2. If the court action was dropped now, they won't even have had a bloody nose really. They made a mistake and it wasn't corrected (a day in court last Dec is already forgotten by most). That's not a bloody nose that's flicked ear!

3. Negotiate? Maybe but with who on our side? We don't have a unified spokes group. Solar Century is a player, a competitor of sorts. I wouldn't suggest they’d be ideal around the table necessarily. FOE. A fine organisation but not there to defend our interests.

If DECC ever wanted to negotiate with the industry, and the multitude of players in it, would have organised a great big consultation and ... oh yes. It did that but had no intention of listening to it as it had already decided.
We can’t negotiate with them. They don’t want to negotiate with us.

I appreciate people want to settle but as things stand

I) there is no softening noises from the government whatsoever. Don't you think the'd have been offering an olive branch by now rather than saying last week "it's 3rd of March but we’re carrying on with court case in the meantime".

ii) and as people keep saying the 21p isn't the whole problem, it's the C rating. And the court case can't even touch that.

iii) whatever the outcome of the court case, 21p isn't safe as such for next year. It's all negotiable now and the easier it is for them to change it now, the easier it will be to change it then.

The government doesn't care about renewables, about green, about PV, about installers that's pretty clear. Drop the court case now and risk being swept aside completely once the initiative and 'mass' has gone out of the market.


(fast forward a year and I could well imagine the announcement "and since there was so little interest/take-up in Solar PV since April year we've decided to replace the scheme with a voluntary contribution system whereby anyone who wants it can pay for it).

Long term is just that. Not seizing this chance, this week is short-termism surely.

[complete aside and ignoring the rights and wrongs of the benefits system. :Iain Duncan Smith's line for reducing benefits was "we're making people independent.., because they won't be dependent on the government". that is logical]

 

[Scott H]

Well, a decision is expected in the morning as to if DECC will be granted an appeal or not ... 10:30 apparantly ...