Call to put pressure on Huhne / coalition to reverse changes to FIT Feed In Tarrif "Little better than Fraud"

On 19 March 2011 12:27, N B

Hello Jonathan,

I agree with your analysis that this change in policy amounts to
little better than fraud.

The current administration came into power based on a Coalition
Agreement that can be read here
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf

Amongst many other things it made the following commitments

10. ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest
threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is
required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon
emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new
green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of
measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and
eco-friendly economy.
• We will push for

• We will establish a full system of feed-in tariffs in electricity –
as well as the maintenance of banded Renewables Obligation
Certificates.

• We will introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from
waste through anaerobic digestion.

• We will reform energy markets to deliver security of supply and
investment in low carbon energy, and ensure fair competition including
a review of the role of Ofgem.

• We will encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where
local people benefit from the power produced. We will also allow
communities that host renewable energy projects to keep the additional
business rates they generate.

• As part of the creation of a green investment bank, we will create
green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to
invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.

20% of its way through the current governments terms it has so far
failed to deliver on any of these commitments.

The recent announcements on FiTs and nuclear policy show quite clearly
that the Coalition is totally failing to meet its stated aims.

I believe that we need to bear this in mind at the forthcoming local elections.

It is quite clear from recent public consultations on solar farms
carried out as part of the planning process that there is a very wide
spread of support for Solar Energy Parks.

Here for example is one such report

http://plan.scambs.gov.uk/swiftlg/MediaTemp/1120974-369658.pdf

I have been involved in introducing quite a few “new” technologies and
I cannot think of any other where there has been so few objections at
this stage in the process. I strongly believe that once a few have
been built and people come to understand the advantages that these
parks will provide our communities, we will soon reach a situation
where many communities will welcome these parks.

I believe that the government and DECC need to reconsider their situation.

I believe that the Treasury is the major cause of this fraudulent
change in policy.

We should bear in mind that Minsters like Huhne and Barker have to bid
against many other causes for Treasury Funds. We should put as much
pressure on the government as possible, and we should do it in such a
way that Huhne has the evidence to roll back the Treasury and policy.

I would urge as many as possible of you to respond to the Consultation
as possible.

I am trying to collect examples of public support from recent public
consultations carried out as part of the planning process. If you have
examples like that shown above, I would be very grateful for links or
copies.

N B

1 Comment

  1. Dr. Smarajit Roy - March 20, 2011, 12:39 pm Reply

    I understand that Nuclear Industry is subsidised billions of pound as with fossil fuels. Community based bioenergy plants are impossible to fund without some governmental. Public private partnership would not work because institutions require instant return of investment. If local authorities are serious they should part fund the project and pay equivalent gate fees to smaller organisations. So far my experience with local authorities is that they they don’t want to put money where there mouth is. They would rather pay 10 staff to talk about renewable energy but would not action any task or support any group even community interest groups.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*