For reasons that I won't go into, but revolve around tax and the early encashment of investments, it may be prudent to put the build on ice for the foreseeable future. With that scenario in mind I called the Energy Savings Trust as I have a plan B of putting solar PV on the roof of the existing house, gaining the existing high rate of feed in tariff (FIT), removing and storing them panels when it's demolished, then putting them on the new house when it's eventually built.
My queries were simple, 'yes' or 'no' ones:
Not sure I got any kind of answer to either question. To the first one she just went off on a tangent, firstly wanting to send me general information about FITs (read it, please don't send more); then talking through the sense of putting panels on a vacant property given the energy sold back is deemed (yes, but if its vacant for two years out of twenty-five the return is still worth it if I can get the original rate). I suppose by implication that meant that it was allowed.
As regards the second, trickier question, all she could tell me was that would be fine with an extension or renovation. But it's not. Oh, yes, Carly said, but if it were an extension or renovation... Trust me, it won't be. The assumption is, she said, that any new build would have a new solar PV array. So, I said, I'm expected to throw away the two- or three-year old array and buy a new one - that doesn't sound very sustainable.
She's passing the query up the line where I'll get an email response within five days. Given this may turn out to be a crucial answer in a few years time if I do have a fight about the FIT rate I asked for a proper written response and said I was happy to write in, setting out the exact question to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Oh no, she said, we don't even send out brochures.
So, given I can't write in with the exact query, I fear a slightly misdirected response to a slightly misunderstood query reliant on Carly's communication of it, probably from a do-not-reply email address. At which point I'll have to repeat the query and they'll have to repeat the work. All together now: that doesn't sound very sustainable.
My queries were simple, 'yes' or 'no' ones:
- can you get FITs by fitting solar PV to a vacant residential property?
- can I still get the original rate of FIT if I refit the panels to a property at the same address having demolished and rebuilt
Not sure I got any kind of answer to either question. To the first one she just went off on a tangent, firstly wanting to send me general information about FITs (read it, please don't send more); then talking through the sense of putting panels on a vacant property given the energy sold back is deemed (yes, but if its vacant for two years out of twenty-five the return is still worth it if I can get the original rate). I suppose by implication that meant that it was allowed.
As regards the second, trickier question, all she could tell me was that would be fine with an extension or renovation. But it's not. Oh, yes, Carly said, but if it were an extension or renovation... Trust me, it won't be. The assumption is, she said, that any new build would have a new solar PV array. So, I said, I'm expected to throw away the two- or three-year old array and buy a new one - that doesn't sound very sustainable.
She's passing the query up the line where I'll get an email response within five days. Given this may turn out to be a crucial answer in a few years time if I do have a fight about the FIT rate I asked for a proper written response and said I was happy to write in, setting out the exact question to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Oh no, she said, we don't even send out brochures.
So, given I can't write in with the exact query, I fear a slightly misdirected response to a slightly misunderstood query reliant on Carly's communication of it, probably from a do-not-reply email address. At which point I'll have to repeat the query and they'll have to repeat the work. All together now: that doesn't sound very sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment