Cabinet Minister And Davey Support Solar Panel Industry

Alex Hole, whose company Strenson Solar provides solar panels in Brighton, England, wonders whether new Energy Secretary Ed Davey will do more for his industry than predecessor Chris Huhne did. Departed Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has left his successor Ed Davey a very important issue in his ministerial in-tray: the question of how to adjust the solar power subsidies in the UK.
Mr Huhne resigned on 3rd February 2012 after learning that he was to be charged with perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case. His ex-wife Vicky Pryce has also been charged because of the claim that she accepted his penalty points.
The MP for Eastleigh is no stranger to court cases. Last December his department announced they were halving the 'feed-in-tariff'; a solar PV tariff which paid homeowners for the electricity their home solar panels generated. The cut angered the industry because it was imposed with just six week's notice; 11 days before the end of an agreed industry-government consultation period.
The High Court ruled that the cut was unlawful and the Court of Appeal decreed that the government couldn¡¯t appeal the decision. However, Mr Huhne opted to refer the case to the Supreme Court and the uncertainty means that customers of ours who had solar panels installed between 12th December 2011 and March 3rd 2012 will be unsure whether they will receive the old 43 per kWh rate or the new 21p rate.
New energy secretary Ed Davey comes from a middle-ranking position in the Department of Business, Industry and Skills. This background suggests that he should be aware that as many as 30,000 jobs could be threatened by slashing support for clean energy.
As his previous job's brief included consumer policy, Mr Davey should also be familiar with how uncertainty over the court verdict means that people considering having panels installed are concerned about whether further tariff reductions might suddenly be introduced.
The irony is that most solar panel installers support a reduction in the feed-in-tariffs subsidies as we recognise that the 43p rate was unsustainable. However, we resent the fact that we were given such short notice of the cut in the rate ¨C this resulted in a 'gold rush' period whereby customers rushed to have panels fitted before the original 12th December cut-off point. When this date elapsed there was an inevitable dramatic down-turn in trade.
Perhaps the answer to this lies in the German system of reviewing solar power subsidies every six months based on solar mark-up conditions and take-up rates (The UK tariff system was supposed to be reviewed every year - a long period during which funds reserved for the tariff pot can soon run out if demand suddenly soars).