PV Feed In Tariff

Isn't it hours and not days in the calculation?

EDIT: @KCross has better eyes than me and spotted that it's already in @curioustony's calculation

The deemed export is supposed to be an abstraction for the full year, so it's definitely worth more in winter but on the flip side might be worth less in summer

They do seem to have scewed the numbers slightly to make the export amount larger. I suspect this is to encourage uptake of solar PV whole people are waiting on smart meters

He has accounted for that in the "24" in the calculation.

I'm in two minds regarding the suppliers. I do feel like there's a bit of brinksmanship going on between them, for example a bunch of suppliers holiding off announcing the FIT before EI and BG announced theirs

That probably a sign that they aren't acting like a cartel but they're certainly not doing their best to bring value to the customer

Similar for the rate increases, I'm pretty sure Energia held off announcing as long as they could so they'd be cheaper on bonkers for a while and lure some more customers over.

Again, not exactly anti-competitive, but not in the best interests of the consumer either

I do feel there's some cartel like behaviour regarding FIT payments. I find it slightly difficult to believe that all the suppliers in the Irish market somehow failed to implement a payment system for the FIT despite having ayears warnng. It's also worth considering those suppliers are often using the same underlying software as each other and other suppliers in the UK which has no issues paying their FIT

The cynic in me is saying they're all holding off so they can complain to the CRU that they're not ready to pay the FIT. And since the CRU has as much backbone as a jellyfish they're not willing to penalise the suppliers

Again, I've no love for them, but I don't hate them either. They are what they are, trying to make a buck off the customer (us) and that's ok. I think we read too much into the FIT payments. In terms of residential customers we've ~25K houses with solar out of 2.5m homes. So like 1% and of that 1% they'll have to give back maybe 30% on average (?) of those houses revenue. So (and I am ballparking it) it's probably like 0.3%. Sure every company looks after the pennies, but I think paying FIT won't effect their bottom line too much.

No, the whole FIT payment fiasco can probably be put down to laziness rather than malice. As a software developer myself, most of these companies have custom accountancy billing systems. I'd bet they've just put it off and off for as long as they can as they've had competing priorities. A bit like....

"well ESB haven't done there's so why should we?"

and they were all standing around like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oACFF39dU6I - LOL !

I dunno how long it took in the UK either though. Granted though, they could have gotten their finger out in Ireland sooner to be fair.

@wexfordman2 it's the same formula, one is just multiplied out using the constants in the CRU decision. I didn't describe the thinking behind all the constant factors either...

Looking to simplify the calculation to just the variables you need. Number of days and size of inverter

Actually have revenue published the details of the tax exemption for the FIT?

I wonder if you go over the exemption limit to you end up paying tax on the excess or the whole lot

The real money makers in this chain are generators, who have some or all of their generation as renewable. Prices are pegged with fossil generation prices so renewables are making a killing. If I had a spare few million I'd be installing a solar farm.

Here are the rates we know about

It might make more sense to consume anything above the €200 limit. But if you don't have a smart meter and your NC6 states 6kW as an example you will be over the €200 based on their estimate.

€200 is very low anyway when they are trying to get people to install renewables. Is the FIT taxed in many other countries?

Yeah, that €200 limit was announced last year or the start of this year, before the recent rises of around 70-80% in unit cost. they really need to increase it proportionally, even up to €300 would see most out of taxable exports.

Who has responsility for setting the FiT rates,is it the energy companies themselves or would the CRU tell them they have a range that they must work within? They are all similar enough between 14 and 18 cents so maybe this was the range?

Id also wonder how the FiT could go up or down, has anything been said it being pegged to a % of retail unit prices? Because you could see a scenario where retail unit prices rise but the FiT doesnt rise alongside it which would seem unfair on the consumer who is helping out with generation.

The CRU set the rate @ .0c and let the companies work from that.

I have some experience in working with ESBN and suppliers and implementing changes to the billing system. It takes years in planning to do this as any shut down and updating of the SEM and market message system has to be planned years out and scheduled to the day/hour when the system is updated. We were introducing a few tariffs to unmetered supplies and the suppliers were extremely cautious and wary.

Regarding FIT this again is another level of complication and how they do this so I can imagine the fuss going on behind the scenes

ok I wonder then is that a source of concern that the regulator is just telling them to have at it and do as they please starting off at 0c. Im not sure what way other countries regulators handle it but you would think as a matter of climate change public policy in renewables that customers who are helping with generation would be a bit more protected with any rise in retail unit prices being pegged to a subsequent rise in the FiT. There seems to be a conflict of interest between self generation by individuals and an energy company supplying power.

The other thing that could happen is energy companies convince consumers to invest in solar becasue of an 18c kwh FiT but then when it suits drop that down to 8 or 9 cents while retail rates are sitting at 45c+ a unit. I would have thought that a well regulated market would at least promise consumers x% of the headline retail rate otherwise there is no certainty of prices remaining as they are.