http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"
--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

I hope their lordships crap all over it.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"


Panic installations going on all over the place here, a lot of them not on
South facing roofs.

I would like to see an audit of installations to confirm that they meet the
guidelines and have been installed correctly.

A lot of 6 panel installs as well, which our calculations suggested did not
give a good return on capital.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:07:45 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

The challenge was over cutting the scheme without adequate warning to
businesses who'd invested in supplying the market created by it, and
cancelling it before the consultation over cancelling it had been
completed. Regardless of the merits[1] of the FIT scheme itself the govt's
handling of its curtailment seems quite out of order and exactly the sort
of abuse of power Judicial Review exists to rectify; a point which
doesn't seem to have been lost on m'learned friends who despite a few
prominent counter-examples are not generally a complete bunch of idiots.


[1] or otherwise: I'm not a fan of giving the relatively wealthy folks
who can afford several grand's worth of PV clobber a subsidy paid for out
of my leccy bills

--
John Stumbles

I can't stand intolerance

On 16/12/2011 22:13, John Stumbles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:07:45 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

The challenge was over cutting the scheme without adequate warning to
businesses who'd invested in supplying the market created by it, and
cancelling it before the consultation over cancelling it had been
completed. Regardless of the merits[1] of the FIT scheme itself the govt's
handling of its curtailment seems quite out of order and exactly the sort
of abuse of power Judicial Review exists to rectify; a point which
doesn't seem to have been lost on m'learned friends who despite a few
prominent counter-examples are not generally a complete bunch of idiots.


[1] or otherwise: I'm not a fan of giving the relatively wealthy folks
who can afford several grand's worth of PV clobber a subsidy paid for out
of my leccy bills

Or even out of the leccy bills of those who have difficulty affording to
heat their homes properly.

If the government really did consider it necessary to subsidise so
called green electricity, and insulating homes, etc. then it should have
done so out of taxation. At least then it would be obvious that it was
taxation and would be paid for by the better off. However, this was a
Gordon Brown initiative so, like his raid on pensions, he was trying to
hide a tax. It was therefore a Labour government that taxed the poor to
subsidise the rich.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

John Stumbles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:07:45 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

The challenge was over cutting the scheme without adequate warning to
businesses who'd invested in supplying the market created by it, and
cancelling it before the consultation over cancelling it had been
completed. Regardless of the merits[1] of the FIT scheme itself the govt's
handling of its curtailment seems quite out of order and exactly the sort
of abuse of power Judicial Review exists to rectify; a point which
doesn't seem to have been lost on m'learned friends who despite a few
prominent counter-examples are not generally a complete bunch of idiots.


[1] or otherwise: I'm not a fan of giving the relatively wealthy folks
who can afford several grand's worth of PV clobber a subsidy paid for out
of my leccy bills

Its more more less the same trick the Krauts played on their nuclear
industry: Except that instead of removing a bit of subsidy they banned
them and kept the taxes on them as well for what are left running - a
tax that was agreed on coditiion their lifetime would be extended to
2023 or thereabouts.

remember the actual process of subsidy reduction was always on the cards
and explicit: the only thing the government has done is to bring it
forward faster and make it deeper than the industry expected.

The view from DECC is I think that it does the country as a whole no
good at all, and PV FITS are simply taxing electricity to no net benefit
except solar panel salesmen and harry.

Georeg Osborne is hungry for anything he can do to push benefit across
the board to the nation that doesn't cost him anything, so ther you go.

The consultation hadn't finished, but I am not sure the government would
be legally bound to either wait for it or in fact abide by it.
Governments have a habit of only hearing from consultations what they
want to hear.

I am sorry that so many PV installing cowboys are out of a job, along
with a very few honest but misguided ones who were stupid enough to
believe PV was the 'coming thing' but I am afraid it is a prce we will
have to pay to ensure the survival of the country at an overall higher
standard of living and better emissions than it would have been with PV.

Old Codger wrote:
On 16/12/2011 22:13, John Stumbles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:07:45 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

The challenge was over cutting the scheme without adequate warning to
businesses who'd invested in supplying the market created by it, and
cancelling it before the consultation over cancelling it had been
completed. Regardless of the merits[1] of the FIT scheme itself the
govt's
handling of its curtailment seems quite out of order and exactly the sort
of abuse of power Judicial Review exists to rectify; a point which
doesn't seem to have been lost on m'learned friends who despite a few
prominent counter-examples are not generally a complete bunch of idiots.


[1] or otherwise: I'm not a fan of giving the relatively wealthy folks
who can afford several grand's worth of PV clobber a subsidy paid for out
of my leccy bills

Or even out of the leccy bills of those who have difficulty affording to
heat their homes properly.

If the government really did consider it necessary to subsidise so
called green electricity, and insulating homes, etc. then it should have
done so out of taxation. At least then it would be obvious that it was
taxation and would be paid for by the better off. However, this was a
Gordon Brown initiative so, like his raid on pensions, he was trying to
hide a tax. It was therefore a Labour government that taxed the poor to
subsidise the rich.

Yes. Green taxes by stealth and a job creation scheme: that's the way
the whole green lobby spins renewables.

In message , John Stumbles
writes
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:07:45 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496

"Solar subsidy cut challenge allowed"

The challenge was over cutting the scheme without adequate warning to
businesses who'd invested in supplying the market created by it, and
cancelling it before the consultation over cancelling it had been
completed. Regardless of the merits[1] of the FIT scheme itself the govt's
handling of its curtailment seems quite out of order and exactly the sort
of abuse of power Judicial Review exists to rectify; a point which
doesn't seem to have been lost on m'learned friends who despite a few
prominent counter-examples are not generally a complete bunch of idiots.


[1] or otherwise: I'm not a fan of giving the relatively wealthy folks
who can afford several grand's worth of PV clobber a subsidy paid for out
of my leccy bills

Why all these pointless endless consultations? What is there to consult
about?
As for judges, one decides that a criminal in jail has the right to be
called "Mr" whilst another one decides its not OK to hurl foul and
abusive language at the police because, well, they should be used to it
by now.
--
hugh