FIT index-linking threatened

I have no skin in this game, but what does the original contract say about changing the goalposts? This might be worth asking in uk.legal.moderated.

If it is by statute then it's immaterial.

certainly be responding, especially to object to their option (2) which would freeze indexation for many years by effectively backdating the change from RPI to CPI. Most people know that RPI is now discredited as the maths is faulty - it seems amazing to me that it was ever adopted by HM Treasury, but I guess that's been staffed almost entirely by innumerate arts graduates.

But while RPI is still used by the Government for e.g. rail fare rises, it seems invidious to get rid of it for one of the few payments from the Government to us ordinary consumers.

That may be so, but does not answer my question.

Surely it's less of a consultation, more of an early notification of mobile goalposts?

Supposedly, RPI is no longer going to exist as an index.

Yes, the Government is getting good at holding these lack-of-consultations, i.e claiming that they consulted but in fact hiding them from all but a lucky few.

They *could* have contacted all of us who have solar panels and get FIT payments as OfGem must have a list of them. Certainly we get phone calls almost every week from some dodgy trader telling us that our panels/inverter are out of warranty and need to be upgraded, so these lists must be widely available. But they chose not to. One can guess why.

I was about to respond to this consultation saying that while RPI is still used so widely by the Government for prices that hey control, such as rail fares, it seems unreasonable to get rid of it for payments to consumers. But today I see that yet another kite being flown by Rachel Reeves pre-budget is that rail fares may be linked to CPI instead of RPI. Except that the formula for some years has been RPI+X, where X has been 1 or 2 percent depending on the year. My guess is that it will now be CPI+Y, where Y can be 2 or 3 or even higher. We can look forward to that.

The gummint giveth and the gummint taketh away.

FITS are a tax on poor people who cant afford rooves. Stop them all.

At a guess, the original contract just says "index linked". If it wasn't for the "triple lock" on state pensions giving a decent rise for the last few years from the wages increase element, there would have been much lower pensions because their index changed from RPI to CPI a few years ago.

I haven't taken the trouble to look up the "Index Linked National Savings" (AKA "Granny Bonds") rates but I bet that was one of the early casualties of the RPI to CPI change.

u.m.r.a...

I've been benefitting from FIT since early 2019 when my rate was 3.79p that has increased to 5.20 (plus deemed payments too that stopped when we installed a Tesla PW) so I have some skin in the game and I've read through the whole thread before commenting.

I don't think it's unreasonable to switch to CPI, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to link it to actual retail electricity prices - no idea what difference that would make plus or minus though.

I'm a great believer in the market, so being paid the market rate for power makes sense to me even if that means the power I send to the grid on a windy summer day is worthless.

On a day when lots of people are talking about ways to fill Rachel's black hole by means other than increased taxes, I find it astonishing that nobody is mentioning the cost of the subsidies for renewable generators [1], of which we as FIT beneficiaries are a small part.

So a switch to market pricing makes sense from that viewpoint too.

Whether it can be done contractually is another matter. I'd be surprised if it can just be done by statute as Jethro said. If that was the case then all the Wind-farm and Solar-farm owners could be in trouble, but I don't think they will be.

The other way to control them is to point out that they are breaking their contracts by allegedly not having proper provision on their balance sheets for de-commissioning costs which they are legally liable for but would obviously not pay if they went bankrupt. They should be told that unless they can show that they have real, ring-fenced assets rather than some accounting fudge, then their subsidy payments will be reduced accordingly to build up said funds in escrow.

If they can still make money under that penalty great, but if not they should fail as so many are anyway.