presidenttttt
Registered User
- Messages
- 262
My understanding is since early 2022, or the date of installation, whichever is later, the public are entitled to payment for every KW they send to the grid from their solar panel systems, with a minimum amount set at 14c per KW. Companies were under some sort of obligation to have their house in order for this by autumn 2022.
The whole system is now an utter mess, and it is entirely a mess on the favour of the energy suppliers with some behaviours suggesting utter failure to comply with the clear overarching principles of the system.
Consumers are being left with half facts, zero appetite or support from the regulator, and in some cases effectively blackmailed into remaining with their current provider or face non-payment.
Specifically;
1. Some providers, at least until recently, had not published their rate- some have chosen to go above 14cents, with rates up to 18.5 available so far.
2. Some providers are simply not providing any concrete information on payment dates.
3. There seems to be no consistency across how payments will be made- monthly, quarterly, annually?
4. Where payments are not monthly, some providers are implying that no payment will be made if the consumer leaves before that date, regardless of their contract being in or out of date.
5. Some companies are claiming they won’t pay FIT, or are not obliged to, if the consumer does not have a smart meter, or has refused a smart meter. To my knowledge this is totally against the law, as anyone producing electricity is entitled to payment for it OR where it can’t be tracked with smart meter there is a formula in the legislation which prescribes an estimate power to grid based on system size.
My opinion;
Points 4&5 are I can only, with any annoyance or emotion totally removed, describe as theft.
In terms of payment periods, smart meters would enable monthly payments. I can understand the logic of annual payments where smart meters are not available, however the annual estimate could also simply be broken down into a monthly estimate - as the annual estimate is based on 365 daily estimates and thus there is a way to factor low generation winter months for providers who don’t want to overpay and see a customer leave within the annual cycle. Either way, the suggestion that you don’t get paid unless you remain a customer is incomprehensible.
The regulators position, and many of us have reached out individually, is to take the issue up with the company complaints process. This is a nonsense as the issue is clearly a national industry wide issue, with widespread confusion and clearly bad, deliberately bad, anti-consumer implementation efforts on top of the heel dragging. Broadly speaking I have found the regulator to be relatively quick at replying but very good at saying things aren’t their remit or take it up with the company. If things aren’t in their remit technically it is their job to go to government and get it in their remit so they can fulfil their legislative purpose.
I wonder would Brendan or others have any views or ability to bring this to higher levels or drum up uncomfortable public noise.
Somewhat separately, the idea that the FIT can be taxed at higher rate seems grossly unfair given the capital outlay involved, it is essentially a business income and expense matter imho.
The whole system is now an utter mess, and it is entirely a mess on the favour of the energy suppliers with some behaviours suggesting utter failure to comply with the clear overarching principles of the system.
Consumers are being left with half facts, zero appetite or support from the regulator, and in some cases effectively blackmailed into remaining with their current provider or face non-payment.
Specifically;
1. Some providers, at least until recently, had not published their rate- some have chosen to go above 14cents, with rates up to 18.5 available so far.
2. Some providers are simply not providing any concrete information on payment dates.
3. There seems to be no consistency across how payments will be made- monthly, quarterly, annually?
4. Where payments are not monthly, some providers are implying that no payment will be made if the consumer leaves before that date, regardless of their contract being in or out of date.
5. Some companies are claiming they won’t pay FIT, or are not obliged to, if the consumer does not have a smart meter, or has refused a smart meter. To my knowledge this is totally against the law, as anyone producing electricity is entitled to payment for it OR where it can’t be tracked with smart meter there is a formula in the legislation which prescribes an estimate power to grid based on system size.
My opinion;
Points 4&5 are I can only, with any annoyance or emotion totally removed, describe as theft.
In terms of payment periods, smart meters would enable monthly payments. I can understand the logic of annual payments where smart meters are not available, however the annual estimate could also simply be broken down into a monthly estimate - as the annual estimate is based on 365 daily estimates and thus there is a way to factor low generation winter months for providers who don’t want to overpay and see a customer leave within the annual cycle. Either way, the suggestion that you don’t get paid unless you remain a customer is incomprehensible.
The regulators position, and many of us have reached out individually, is to take the issue up with the company complaints process. This is a nonsense as the issue is clearly a national industry wide issue, with widespread confusion and clearly bad, deliberately bad, anti-consumer implementation efforts on top of the heel dragging. Broadly speaking I have found the regulator to be relatively quick at replying but very good at saying things aren’t their remit or take it up with the company. If things aren’t in their remit technically it is their job to go to government and get it in their remit so they can fulfil their legislative purpose.
I wonder would Brendan or others have any views or ability to bring this to higher levels or drum up uncomfortable public noise.
Somewhat separately, the idea that the FIT can be taxed at higher rate seems grossly unfair given the capital outlay involved, it is essentially a business income and expense matter imho.