REGIONAL I UNITED KINGDOM
government chose to state that £30 would be added to every bill if the breaks were not put on now. While the cost is a factor there were so many methods of achieving the goal rather than a six week window for companies to re-organise schedules, resources and labour when they believed they had six months. The initial loss of jobs and projects and investment is what should be seen as morally wrong.
Sadly the solar industry has been caught up in internal government bickering in how best to deal with long term climate issues. It is the long term that has been forgotten as governmental departments argue about short term financial services and savings. There has been a rush of studies and surveys and reports all pointing to conclusions that renewable energy and micro-generated energy are too expense to pursue. A recent KPMG report suggests that the government will now be able to meet its international carbon emission targets at a much cheaper rate by NOT investing in wind energy and instead move to gas fired energy producers. This of course suits the big 6 energy companies and reduces micro-generation which is a major threat to the big 6’s morally objectionable future profits.
There is another group that has lobbied the government to slash the subsidy rate and that is the financial community. Pension funds and middle class investors have realised the potential double digit returns far outweighs anything banks can offer and there had been a steady trickle of funds from that sector moving to renewable efforts. A number of multi million pound projects are unlikely to go ahead now as pension funds seek safe but profitable rates of returns for their precious funds. With recent financial mistakes many are nervous about long term financial security as well as energy security. Sadly the most impacted from such projects are community and social based projects. Long term energy is one of the most convoluted and poorly represented topics in policy decision making. It is another area
that is too easily reduced to dichotomies with some choosing to argue it is only about global warming whilst others argue it is about resource control and profiteering. An area the government accuses the solar industry of. Sadly our political mechanisms does not cater very well to long term visions and democratic governments are well aware that their success depends largely on the here and now and posterity rarely provides votes for the next election.
Many of the companies complaining the loudest are those that are likely to lose the most. Many companies built their business plan based on the subsidies that the government provided and secured large debts or investment to ramp up as quickly as possible to take advantage of the high paying returns. From a purely capitalist point of view they took a gamble and lost. These companies have continued to charge and cost as if their had been no drop in module pricing since they begun their programmes ensuring their rates of return hit double figures without ever passing on these savings to the customers, whose behalf they now claim to be arguing for. Despite their protests such a gamble not paying off is no surprise and all involved in such risks have little argument that the FiT programme would change. This includes the lending banks who cannot claim due diligence. The unfair manner in which the game was changed is reminiscent of the unfair playing field that current ‘Occupy’ protests are arguing around the world.
End of the industry?
The changes to the UK subsidy programme will hit the industry and there is sure to be increased unemployment as well as folding companies but it would be inappropriate to suggest it will kill the industry. Solar has built momentum in the UK and once the dust settles from the eventual subsidy review people will beginning to realise that even at the now proposed rate of 21 pence installing solar panels after the deadline can still see
Issue X 2011 I
www.solar-pv-management.com 35
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