03 Nov 2011
Delaying the government's proposed cuts to solar feed-in tariffs until April next year would add between 10p and £1.60 to annual energy bills, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change's (DECC's) draft impact assessment of the controversial changes.
The 27-page document (PDF) was published on the DECC web site yesterday, providing an assessment of the economic, financial, and environmental impact of the government's choosing to maintain solar incentives at current levels, impose deep cuts to incentives from April next year as originally planned, or bring cuts into effect from 12 December as proposed earlier this week.
The assessment confirms that, if the government makes no changes to solar feed-in tariff incentives, the scheme will quickly exceed its spending cap, leading to an increase in average domestic energy bills of almost £26 a year by 2020.
In contrast, it shows that the government's preferred option of halving the level of incentives available to small solar installations, and applying the lower rate from April next year to any installation completed after 12 December, would limit the impact on average annual energy bills by 2020 to £2.60 to £3.20, assuming that the government also introduces new standards to limit installations to energy efficient buildings.
The proposal effectively to impose the cuts to incentives with just six weeks' notice has drawn a furious response from solar firms, which have warned that it will not give them long enough to complete orders and manage stock ahead of an anticipated reduction in demand.
A number of firms are expected to take legal action against the government over the pace of the changes, with complaints focusing on the decision to impose the changes to the feed-in tariff scheme before the completion of the consultation on the proposed reforms.
The government has maintained that the cuts need to come into effect quickly to head off a rush of new installations that would exceed the scheme's budget, resulting in significant increases to energy bills.
The impact assessment shows that delaying the cuts to incentives until April next year, as had been anticipated by solar firms, would result in an increase in installations. But it also calculates that those extra installations would lead to an increase in average annual energy bills in 2020 of just £3.30 to £4.20, again assuming that the government's proposed energy efficiency standards are introduced for future solar installations.
Solar industry insiders said that the impact on energy bills of delaying the proposed changes until April next year would therefore range from just 10p at the lowest end of the government's estimates to £1.60 at the high end, compared to the estimated impact of the current proposals.
Taking the mid-point of the government's estimates for the two scenarios the likely increase in energy bills from delaying the proposed changes until April is 85p a year.
"The assessment shows that, if there is the political will to find a compromise, we are talking about peanuts to pay for it," said one industry source. "DECC hasn't done the modelling for it, but the assessment suggests that, if there was a sensible delay that gave firms more time to prepare, the impact on energy bills in 2020 would be around 20p to 30p a year."
A DECC spokeswoman reiterated the government's view that "urgent action" is needed to stop the feed-in tariff scheme exceeding its funding allocation for the current spending period.
"The Impact Assessment notes that we estimate the costs to consumers (nominal, undiscounted) of Option 2 (tariff reductions from April 2012 to installations with eligibility dates from 12 December 2011) will be £320m-£350m in 2014-15 versus a FITs budget of £357m, whereas for Option 3 (delaying the tariff reductions until April 2012) the estimated range is £390m-£430m," she said.
However, the industry disputes these figures, stating that the government's own impact assessment shows on page 22 of the document that the actual estimated costs to consumers of delaying the cuts until April 2012 would run to £260m to £290m in 2014-15.
The latest development comes as solar firms reported that they have received a glut of orders from households and businesses hoping to complete installations before 12 December, while several councils and businesses confirmed that they are cancelling high profile projects, leaving solar firms facing huge liabilities.
A number of companies are now recommending that the government delays any changes to the feed-in tariff until late January or early February, a move they argue would give firms enough time to complete their current order book, clear pre-ordered stock, and limit the financial liabilities as a result of the cuts.
The impact assessment also reveals that official government figures show that, far from seeing costs fall by up to 70 per cent, as Climate Change Minister Greg Barker has suggested, the industry has in fact seen installation costs fall by 30 to 40 per cent since the launch of the feed-in tariff scheme.
Moreover, the smallest installations, which now face cuts to incentives of over 50 per cent, have seen the lowest reductions in installation costs, with the estimated cost of a 2.6kW installation falling 30 per cent from £13,000 to £9,000.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT SOLAR
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Market has failed to provide sufficient new capacity to deal with increase in demand, energy minister warns
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
Service provider builds a compact, energy-efficient and scalable IT infrastructure
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Why 25 years?
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me why the FIT is over 25 years, maybe someone out there can. If the price of pv systems is now 25% lower than a year ago why not cut the term to 15 years and keep the tariff at say 38p. The result would be the public would still invest with a payback period of 8 years, double their money by the end of the tariff and continue to save on their electricity bills after that. The cost of the feed in tariff would be halved overnight. The rent a roof companies (apparently 40% of all new installations), that the govt hate so much for hoovering up the FIT would go out of business overnight as the return over 15 years would not make it viable. These days people are more mobile than ever before so why have a tariff of 25 years when 15 would be sufficient? If the payback under the new tariff is 15 years, most people would say I might not even be living here in 15 years to even get my money back! 21p for 25 years is not attractive is will kill the industry, 38p over 15 years will keep the industry thriving but would cut the incentive by half overnight. I await a response.
Posted by Steve, 09 Nov 2011
Boom and Bust?
G. Barker announced on 31/10/11 he wants to avoid boom and bust in the solar industry? This is exactly what the government has created in drastically reducing and bringing forward the Feed in tariff. A growing, sustainable green industry has been developed and will burst on 12/12/11. We, like all other solar companies have invested a huge amount of time, money and scrutinisation, to become accredited which we gained 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks later we are sending deposits back and having countless daily phone calls from non-proceeding customers we have quoted (unless fitted B4 12/12 which we cant). We have run a steady family business for ten years and never known such chaos. Most of the Customers outraged by the governments decision. I know we are in difficult economic times but if low/none carbon producing energies are going to have a large impact their needs to be the incentive to do so. We were given this incentive with the feed in tariff project till 2020, now its not even made it till 2012. Avoid Boom and Bust? this will surely be the fastest bubble to burst in modern economic history!
Posted by C.Jones, 03 Nov 2011
Out of stock
People may find this interesting. Phoning around our suppliers today for pv kits to fill orders, but they have mostly sold out. They are ording more but wont be until end of nov start of dec. The cuts are to soon, and orders can not filled. The clients who have applied for the pv installs before this has happen may well miss out. They have had the pv sold to them as a safe government backed scheme and told not to worry its all above board. To now find out that its not going to happen its just plain wrong, How do they expect any company to back any scheme that they come up with ever again?
Posted by lee, 03 Nov 2011
Cut Not kill
The goverment would have been better introducing smaller cuts when it reviewed fits for larger schemes earlier this year and then reduce the scheme at a slower rate every year to allow both installation companies and potential consumers adjust, We run an installation company in yorkshire and were installing PV before the Fits came in, I hope the goverment see's sense as we have lost 3 orders this week worth nearly a months turnover for us, It not only effects installer but suppliers, transport companies, scaffolders, trade associations,. I would hate to have to make any of my staff redundant as they earn an honest hard working living, it would be surely more expensive to pay benefits for these families, and have them loose thier self respect and confidence along the way?
Posted by Danny Lang, 03 Nov 2011
& VAT too
Nick Pascoe is right, but forgets to add the loss to treasury on VAT from istallations, and corporation tax from these succesful businesses. What small saving is gained on the average energy bill is probably lost in tax.
Posted by mark, 03 Nov 2011
in response to Nick Pascoe
Great comments. There is just so little genuine information out there to make the case either for or against tariffs in a sensible way. This is all about playing to the media and waving a flag to the Treasury without any vision at all. Did not Chris Huhne say last week that the govenment would not spend any money on nuclear either. Our leaders seem to be living in a dream world. What is the Coalition government's plan? Where is it and where are the costs laid out. The idea that solar is responsible for energy price increases over the long term seems potty to me given the pressures on resources around the world and our carbon targets. Whatever you think about Nuclear power, it is certainly not a cheap option for the tax payer! Surely it is time for government to have a plan, to have a coherent approach which needs cross party support. This anti solar fiasco is a distraction and I suspect impacts future energy bills less than the alternatives. A plan... a plan... I know we have it somewhere??!!
Posted by Mark Hoskin, 03 Nov 2011
Cost of solar
The discussion about the cost of solar seems to be taking place in a vacuum with no reference to other factors likely to drive up prices? What is the government's 10 year view on the price of electricity irrespective of solar? I suspect they cannot answer this, because I have not read anywhere actually what the energy plan is? Or what money the government plan to spend to make this happen? Can you enlighten us James?
Posted by Mark Hoskin, 03 Nov 2011
Impact Assessment
The Impact assessment released yesterday has some interesting information, recommend that all read it. - DECC estimate that installations will reduce by 95% as a result of the proposal (95% * 25,000 jobs to be lost?) - That the current cost of FiTs to bill payers is just £1.40 per year (remind your Tory MP of this if he spouts about the cost of green taxes to hard working families) - In the do nothing scenario (just drop Fits 9% each April) that the addition to your electricity bill would reach £25.80/yr by 2020 (but nobody is arguing for this scenario) - No account is taken in the IA of the loss to the revenue of 25,000*95% lots of PAYE or consequential state support costs - No account is taken of the electricity savings made by the 100,000 'hard working families' that have had PV installed. For me, there seems to be missing a scenario. One in which the FiT is cut 35% by end Dec. This should have been modelled to see how many fewer jobs would be lost and how the Solar PV sector could have ended up as being sustainable rather than demolished. The fact that only the highest case and the devastating current case were modelled points to some of the purposeful intent behind destroying the UK’s Solar industry. It stinks. Right from the moment that George Osborne / Chris Huhne were persuaded by the big6 Energy companies to put a CAP on the FiT, it was doomed. The mass roll out of Solar PV has grown to become a threat to the established order of the big power generation monopolies in other EU countries. The big 6, behind 99% of all UK electricity, do not want it here. They asked the Govt. to squash it and supported that with prolonged non-fact based rhetoric about green taxes pushing up energy prices. Did you know the Big6 have a seat on the board of the Renewable Energy Association (prompting key member resignations) and fund the Renewable Energy Foundation?? The reality is that DECC are Nuclear focused. Post Fukushima Nuclear is too expensive for EDF / RWE to make the returns they’re seeking. They're dawdling whilst ministers are ever more desperate to please them so that they'll get on and build the nukes. We'll see many more nuclear and gas power generation supportive policies coming through in coming months / years whilst any realistic threat to that dominance is purposefully contained by Govt. Policy.
Posted by Nick Pascoe, 03 Nov 2011