REGIONAL I UNITED KINGDOM
UK solar subsidy: FiT or fiasco?
The UK government has announced another fast track review of the country’s Feed in Tariff (FiT) creating a storm of commentary from all sectors of the industry. Have the government got it completely wrong or are there good reasons for the changes? David Ridsdale looks at the recent events shaping the industry.
N
ot even a week had passed since Climate Change Minister Greg Barker announced the proposed changes to the UK FiT scheme and already there were rumours of impending changes to these new proposals. Despite previous assurances of a graduated approach to subsidies the government announced cuts greater than 50% and placed a new deadline on existing projects that is actually before the consultation is due to finish.
The proposed date of December the 12th as the new cut off point, instead of the original April deadline, is likely to be the major sticking point for the government and the detail most likely to change as companies and organisations look to legal options to combat what many believe is an illegal constraint on the consultative process.
The government would have expected legal challenges from companies who feel they have been put at risk from changing policies that ignore the investments some have planned but they may not have expected high profile organisations such as the Friends of the Earth announcing they are seeking a legal challenge to the government’s proposals. The main focus of their argument is of course a deadline that is previous to the completion of the review. The deadline dates have also become a touchstone for the opposition with Labour’s Shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint confronting Barker in Parliament asking why the consultation deadline is the 23rd of December when the proposed cut off point for the new changes is the 12th of
December. Barker’s response was to suggest that waiting next year would see a gold rush sucking up the budget and six weeks was enough for projects in the pipeline to be completed. He then revealed his understanding of industry concerns by stating, ‘We may be out of touch with the solar lobby but not the energy bill payers.’
The underlying political motivations are key to the sudden changes with arguments within the government regarding climate issues well known even if they are not mentioned publically. In parliament recently, Barker provided an excellent example of how our political process muddies the waters rather than providing clear vision for the future of energy. At one point, in response to Flint’s questions, he blamed the entire logistical mess on the opposition as the initial bill went through at the end of their watch stating the entire fiasco lay with the poorly defined and presented initial bill. Less than half an hour later and in the same session Barker tried to claim that the only reason there was any subsidy was because the Tories and Lib Dems voted the Bill through whilst in opposition. The point scoring nature of political communication rarely provides reasonable discussion for long term issues. To many within the industry it would appear as if the government has totally messed up the entire process but the issue is more complex than simple budget cuts. A key feature of this messy process has been the poor quality of factual information that has been produced by all sides involved. There are some industry spokespeople stating that such cuts will destroy the industry, others are declaring their intentions for
Issue X 2011 I
www.solar-pv-management.com 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44