Who's sticking around?

[TedM]

Don't be tempted by hydro. You will get jerked around by the Environment Agency, who are a worse bunch to deal with than DECC if that is possible to believe. I speak from bitter experience.

 

[PAGE Renewable]

I think the EPC rating will kill it dead in April - I have heard (sorry, no independent research, so I cannot verify this) 86% of the UK housing stock doesn't meet the standard at this moment. Please prove me wrong anybody!

 

[GreggElectrical]

We have just renewed (last week) so will here for another year. They will have to wait for for the updates to my QMS though, I think ill get round to it about Dec 13th!

ASHP is my next thoughts though.

 

[Noshocks]

ASHP is mine too, however its a gamble as it not included in the RHI at the moment from my understanding so a bit of a punt.

 

[TedM]

I think the EPC rating will kill it dead in April - I have heard (sorry, no independent research, so I cannot verify this) 86% of the UK housing stock doesn't meet the standard at this moment. Please prove me wrong anybody!

86% is the figure quoted by DECC in their 'consultation' document.

 

[kate.harrison1]

@pcollins - our assesment date is the same day! We plan to stay in (until next September anyway when our renewal is up) - and judge the market then (this is part of our main company that I basically set up myself so we can still survive without the income stream). I still believe in PV, even with the reduced FiT (although the cut was required, it was damaging to the industries public perception to do it this fast), but I have to report that in the 2 years we have been in this business I have not yet had a customer even mention having an installation because of anything other than "money".

I do think we have to be realistic. However people may want to be 'green', at a time of deep recession, low interest rates to investors, high interest rates to borrowers, of course the majority of customers are doing it largely for financial reasons. Doesn't mean that they don't also feel rather proud to also be helping the environment. If there is no financial gain, even with ridiculously low savings interest rates, you would have to be a hardened green campaigner to tie up such a large amount of money in pv. The savings on electricity are minimal but of course, this could change significantly if prices rocket.

I do understand that installers are angry and feel conned and let down, but, if you imagine you were just a customer with no business/career interest in the industry, would you hand over £10k plus for no return just to be green when you don't know how long you may have a job and rising prices etc?

With hindsight, I suppose what they should have done was to review regularly, say every three months and bring down tariff gradually in line will falls in cost. As it is now, people who have had recent intalls have benefitted in full from both the fall in costs and the high tariff and so the available pot has not been shared fairly and the industry has been allowed to boom and now potentially, bust. Government 's fault for incompetence!

 

[malcolmsanford]

It is so easy to apportion blame be it the government, Barker or whoever but if you actually took time read the debate there are points in it that are undeniably true.

There is a budget of 800 odd million and there is a real possibility if the current rate of installation was not capped the budget would run out, so the existing customers that have the 43.3p awarded may have lost everything. That is not the governments fault that is the loop hole that was in the system that created the rent a roofers, the system was not designed for this and so the blame for this is many fold.

The reduction is now looking at a 5% return which when the FITs were introduced was the target. Because of the advent of the rent the roof companies they have driven prices down on material and installations to the point where people were getting double digit returns on investment, and so this could not continue with budget restraints again who to blame.

I have always maintained that this was a subsidy that was ok when times were affluent and now they are not it is un sustainable, it really is as simple as that. The majority were beginning to realize that they are subsidizing the minority and human nature is human nature.

Whether it was now or in a few months it is a bitter pill to swallow but it is medicine that I suspect was needed sooner rather than later.

 

[TedM]

... That is not the governments fault that is the loop hole that was in the system that created the rent a roofers, the system was not designed for this and so the blame for this is many fold.

Sorry, can't agree with that.

Rent a roof options were specifically not excluded from the FiTs scheme in order to placate the cries that were coming from those concerned about inequality and fuel poverty at the time of the original FiTs consultation in 2009.

Similarly with 5MW solar farms. They knew it was going to happen. The upper limit was chosen to allow them to be built.

They also knew that putting FiTs in place was going to cause distortions in the market. That's why reviews and tariff degressions were built in. But they managed to get nearly all the details wrong - despite being told otherwise. Why? They ignored the consultation responses that they didn't like and that didn't align with their preconceptions. A simple civil service attitude of 'we know best'. Well, DECC, no you ****ing don't, do you?

The government (Labour at the time) went into this with their eyes wide open to all these possibilities. If the Coalition failed to see these things when they took over then they are more than just incompetent - they are verging on criminally negligent.

 

[Tiberius]

Were taking a step back and seeing how it pans out, also looking at the green deal and other renewables although the heat pumps courses are not worth it when you live in the middle of a city and only homes in the middle of no where get funding for them.