Draft response to Feed-in Tariff DECC consultation

19/4/2012

I have updated the draft of 21st February and am inviting comments from mha readers on this page before final submission by 26 April.

This is probably the last opportunity for several years to improve the conditions for potential micro hydro developments so please make your comments here or, if lengthy, send me an email. This is so that there is some indication of the support or otherwise from the mha members and others with an interest in micro hydro.

The final draft of the mha response can be downloaded here.

Thank you for your input.

11 Comments

G Logie

20/4/2012 01:17:28

RE
"provide a level of consumer protection that meets the Office of Fair Trading Consumer Code requirements."

"this could be an optional element for generators requiring assurance – if a scheme does not work effectively the lack of performance will cost the tax-payer or electricity consumer nothing because FiT payment will be reduced or zero"

I don't agree with this there is no reason why customers of Hydro Installers should not receive the same protection as anyone else unless we have something to hide. This is not about cost to the tax payer. It should not be down to the customer to ask for it. There needs to be independent recourse for the customer if the system does not perform as sold.

Jo Beaumont

20/4/2012 01:27:38

agree with the comment above, but otherwise, the response is good. Thank you so much for all the hard work, and frustration, that must have gone into reading, understanding and replying for us all.

Matthew Aitken

20/4/2012 02:33:22

I agree with the excellent and detailed response and comments. As for "provide a level of consumer protection..." this may get a bit legally tricky but there will be a contract for the contractor to supply the materials and services agreed and perform to the agreed spec. If it doesn't there should be a recourse through consumer law.

Gordon Black link

20/4/2012 02:36:15

Gavin, An excellent submission - reading it help clarify some thing for me, for example on preliminary accreditation options and timetable. babyHydro fully supports the submission as it stands.

Your effort on behalf of our industry is appreciated.

Regards, Gordon

mike kirwin

20/4/2012 03:36:46

Not had time to read this latest 64 page doc. In case I don't manage to - is there an opportunity to comment on the logic defying tariff structure? Under the current rules, a number of schemes are being downsized for financial reasons. A 100Kw scheme earns the same as a 164Kw scheme - but when the extra costs of the larger scheme are taken in to account, the FiT effectively makes it uneconomic to generate 100Kw < +200Kw. This is because installations only receive the tariff for the band that they're in.

A more sensible approach would be that every scheme receives 21.9p for the first 15Kw's generated. From 15Kw < 100Kw schemes would drop down to the next tariff and so on. This way there wouldn't be any uneconomic negative zones in the tariff table and schemes would be sized at their optimum level and we'd have more green energy. Is this too obvious and too sensible?

Gavin King-Smith link

20/4/2012 08:20:09

The consultation questions do not address the FiT tariff bands or provide an opportunity for general comments. I shall therefore be submitting separate proposals for discussion with DECC for how the FiT structure could be improved to realise greater benefit from hydro schemes. I will publish these on the mha website when DECC have had an opportunity to see them and indicated whether or when they might address them.

Brian Faux

20/4/2012 09:21:55

`Greater benefit from` sounds like `greater benefit to..`
A contiuously changing FIT depending on output size would be fairer and avoid sizing to fit FIT rather than sizing to fit river.

Brian Faux

20/4/2012 03:38:10

I am also pleased (and intrigued) to see the part about preliminary accreditation. Ofgem`s misleading advice made me install the wrong size generator and led to a two year delay on accreditation. Intriguing because they consistently deny any responsibilty for the advice given. Of course Ofgem is not DECC...

Kath Aitken

21/4/2012 10:12:40

Hi Gavin, great work as always. Q16 re the poss of lowering tariff if reusing materials/equipt,if this was done it wouldn't encourage people to recycle perfectly good kit which would be against the efficiency ethos and if there was a lower efficiency then it would be reflected in a lower output anyway. Many thanks for your amazing efforts.

Miles Wenner

23/4/2012 06:38:11

An awful amount of work you have had which I note the Government feels others should do in interest of installing small scale renewables.
I feel micro hydro <4Kw for domestic use, should be exempt from what appears to be grossly over the top bureaucracy. They still appear to be trying to come up with 1 size fits all. Maybe I have misunderstood but then this subject and its language has become remote from Lay persons like myself. Thanks for all your persistence and enormous hard work.

Vari Drabble

25/4/2012 05:41:53

Gavin, thank you for all the thought, time and effort you put into clarifying and solving the difficulties for micro-hydro generators. In response to your submission, I applaud and support it and hope your proposals can be incorporated. Also, many thanks for your on-going work with FiT tariff bands.

Author

This is a blog to replace the Latest News Page for the Micro Hydro Association so that you can use the RSS feed below. Previous News is still kept on the Home Page. From Administrator.

Micro Hydro Association

Draft response to Feed-in Tariff DECC consultation

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories