OFGEM response to consultation on the future of ROCs

[ywindythesecond]

OFGEM have responded to the Government consultation on the future of the Renewables Oligations Scheme.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/18363_ROrespJan.pdf

Compulsive reading for everyone who pays an electricity bill, and bound to become a reference document.

OFGEM looks after consumer interests, it is not an anti, or for, windfarm organisation.

Opening words:

"We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn."

That is about £600 for every man woman or child in UK. Happy reading.
ywindythesecond

[Bill Fernie]

Thanks ywindythesecond for bringing this response to the consultation to our attention. I agree it is an excellent and clear response.

A response from the renewable sector at http://www.scottishrenewables.com/data/reports/RO%20Joint%20Statement%20Jan%202007.pdf is as you might expect highly defensive of the current system making some valifd points about investment.

A longer response from the Rebewable Energy Association can be found at http://www.bwea.com/pdf/070105ROJointResponseFinal.pdf and like the Scottish Renewables repsonse is defensive of the current system - perhaps as you might expect.

I have always said that ROCs were a way of making the consumer pay but then the consumer always pays. I think we probably agree that the price in this case is on the high side and it certainly appears that OFGEM would rather not be involved in the future running of the scheme and its changes.

Undoubtedly a tricky situation for the government to make changes and yet maintain the way forward with its targets on renewables. Perhaps this may be the time for them to change the emphasis or slow down the programme allowing other forms of renewable to catch up in development terms.

I note that the planning process is being blamed for some of the very high development costs and am somewhat suprised at this as the costs in public enquries etc are not a new thing although the numbers of them may be.

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=Bill Fernie;186466]Thanks ywindythesecond for bringing this response to the consultation to our attention. I agree it is an excellent and clear response.

A response from the renewable sector at http://www.scottishrenewables.com/data/reports/RO%20Joint%20Statement%20Jan%202007.pdf is as you might expect highly defensive of the current system making some valifd points about investment."

Thanks for the links Bill. Both are the same, can you post the second one please.

[Rheghead]

As far as I know, the ROCs have such a high market price because they are in demand, it is a sellers market. However, as more renewable energy is generated the price will come down. Thus making our fuel bills more affordable. The bottom line is more ROCs, cheaper lecky.

[Bill Fernie]

Ywindythesecond
I have amended my link above to the correct one now.

[ywindythesecond]

As far as I know, the ROCs have such a high market price because they are in demand, it is a sellers market. However, as more renewable energy is generated the price will come down. Thus making our fuel bills more affordable. The bottom line is more ROCs, cheaper lecky.

Reggy, You will know better when you have read the OFGEM response.

[ywindythesecond]

Ywindythesecond
I have amended my link above to the correct one now.

Thanks Bill
I have had a quick look at the longer one, and it seems to be a response tothe consultation whereas the shorter joint statemnet seems to be a response to OFGEM.
Once Kitty May has read them perhaps she can give us a brief summary!

[KittyMay]

Observations on the failure of the infamous ROC, by Ofgem and many others, are hardly unexpected. (2 more examples)

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/file_9872.doc (http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/file_9872.doc)

http://www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/REF.ROS.consultation.23.06.pdf (http://www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/REF.ROS.consultation.23.06.pdf)

The renewables industry is whining and whingeing about the unfairness of it all – no surprises there then. Whose fault is it, though? The renewables industry understood the purpose of ROC’s.. They also knew that the ROC was intended to promote research and development of a balanced mix of renewable technologies. They were perfectly well aware that the purpose of the ROC was not to make pots of dosh for the wind industry. They failed us.

There are those who will argue that to change the ROC system now would threaten the governments renewable energy target. So what? The government tried to kill two very big birds with one very small stone (pebble actually) – carbon emissions and security of supply. Two huge problems solved by the easiest method they could find – a tad unrealistic. Big mistake, in my humble opinion and it’s highly unlikely they’ll meet their 2020 target with the current ROC system anyway.

What’s the priority? Meaningful carbon reductions or an unreliable ‘add on’ to our current electricity generating mix? (When the storage problem has been solved we can revisit wind energy) It’s going to cost us whatever we do. I’d much rather put my hard earned cash directly into reducing carbon emissions.

Let’s re-evaluate. The ROC has failed. A quick glance through our very own Highland Renewable Energy Strategy confirms this. This is not aimed at reducing carbon emissions it’s about climbing aboard the wind energy band wagon. We argue about birds, noise, community benefit, proximity to houses, cumulative impact, planning etc etc – we’re meant to be concentrating on reducing carbon emissions.

We’ve completely lost sight of our objective. Let’s get back on track - rewrite the target - and concentrate on reducing carbon emissions using all the options available.

Security of electricity supply? A different problem with different solutions. The long term goal must be the replacement of carbon dirty technologies but in the short term - clean them up and make them more efficient now. We’re going to be relying on them for a quite a while yet – wind or no wind.