Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SSECC v Friends of the Earth Approved

SSECC v Friends of the Earth Approved

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8,894|Likes:
Published by The Guardian

More info:

Published by: The Guardian on Jan 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/28/2015

pdf

text

original

 
 Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 28Case No: C1/2012/0023
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION,ADMINISTRATIVE COURTThe Honourable Mr Justice MittingCO/10734, 11055, 11091/2011
Royal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 25/01/2012
Before:LORD JUSTICE LLOYDLORD JUSTICE MOSES
and
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Appellant- and -Friends of the Earth and OthersRespondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Jonathan Swift QC, Mr Paul Nicholls and Mr James Cornwell
(instructed by
TheTreasury Solicitor
) for the
AppellantMr Sam Grodzinski QC
(instructed by
Asserson Law Offices
) for the
RespondentHomeSun Holdings Ltd,
 
Mr Richard Drabble QC
and
Mr Duncan Sinclair
(instructed inhouse) for the
Respondent Friends of the Earth,
 
Mr Edmund Robb
(instructed by
Prospect Law
) for the
Respondent Solar Century Holdings Ltd
and for 
three interestedparties,
and
Mr James Burton
for the
remaining interested parties
Hearing date: Friday 13
th
January, 2012- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
 
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
SSECC v Friends of the Earth
Lord Justice Moses:
 1.In April 2010 a scheme, known as the FIT Scheme, was introduced to enableelectricity supply companies to make payments to small-scale producers of low-carbon electricity. The purpose of the scheme was to encourage members of the public and the community to become involved in the low-carbon generation of electricity by specified types of technology. The system of Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) isdesigned to provide support and to encourage small-scale low-carbon generators. Thesources of such generation were, for example, biomass, wind and solar photovoltaic(solar PV).2.The Feed-in Tariff comprises two elements, only one of which is relevant to thisappeal. The first is a “generation tariff”, that is payment for the amount of electricity produced by the small-scale low-carbon generator, even if that electricity is used bythe person who generated it. This application for permission (to be followed by anappeal, if granted, which I shall refer to as the appeal) concerns the generation tariff.The second element is “the export tariff” when payment is made for the amount of electricity exported into the grid. That tariff is not relevant to this appeal.3.The electricity supply companies pay the Feed-in Tariff to generators of small-scalelow-carbon electricity accredited by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (theAuthority). But the cost of the Feed-in Tariff is passed on to all electricity consumers.It triggers raised prices and is, effectively, a subsidy paid by consumers. Suchsubsidy is controlled by HM Treasury and for that reason there is a budget for the FITScheme.4.At the time the 2010 FIT scheme was initiated the cost of installation of solar PVequipment per unit of electricity generated was high compared with other low-carbongeneration technologies. Accordingly, the tariff level was set at a higher level thanfor other technologies to provide an incentive to generators by such means. TheSecretary of State expected a return of about 5% from the installation of such systems.The return was expected to last 25 years, was, for some participants, tax-free, andfluctuated in accordance with the Retail Price Index.5.By February 2011 the Secretary of State had become concerned that larger small-scalesolar PV projects would take a disproportionate amount of the funding available.Accordingly, he announced a consultation in respect of solar projects with generatingcapacity of more than 50 kW. The consultation was fast-tracked and published on 18March 2011, with a period for responses which closed on 6 May 2011. Theconsultation led to changes in the tariff rates in respect of large-scale solar installations with effect from 1 August 2011. I refer to this process of consultation because it led to changes in tariff rates relevant to larger small-scale producers and provides a useful contrast to the consultation with which this appeal is concerned.6.This appeal is concerned with a consultation published on 31 October 2011. Theadoption of solar PV by communities and the public had been unexpectedlysuccessful. In the first 18 months of the FIT Scheme the take-up was almost doublethat which had been anticipated for the first 2 years. Solar PVs were the largestnumber of installations under the FIT Scheme. There had been a substantial increasein the months immediately before October 2011 with the rate of increase acceleratingin the weeks leading up to publication of the proposals. The costs of installing solar 
 
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
SSECC v Friends of the Earth
PV systems had fallen substantially, from about £13,000 to £9,000 for 4kW. Inconsequence, the tariffs available were providing higher rates of return than the 5-7%anticipated in the consultation document of 2009. The Secretary of State wasconcerned that solar PV generators would be over-compensated and the FIT Scheme budget would be breached, limiting the availability of funds to other technologies andfuture generators. In short, the tariffs for solar PVs were threatening the extent towhich the FIT Scheme could be afforded.7.I should emphasise, at this stage, that this appeal is not concerned with the merits othe Secretary of State’s proposals. No one has sought to impugn the reasons behindthese proposals. But it is the form of those proposals which has triggered these proceedings. There are two linked proposals, only one of which is the subject matter of these proceedings. The consultation period ended on 23 December 2011, theclosing date for the receipt of representations. The consultation proposed a new andlower rate of tariff to be paid to solar PV generators which become eligible for  payment from 1 April 2012. This proposal is not challenged.8.The second, linked proposal is the subject matter, and the only subject matter, of thisappeal. It is proposed that the tariff rate to be paid in respect of solar PV installationswhich become eligible for payment on or after 12 December 2011 should be reducedon 1 April 2012. The rate is fixed by reference to the year in which the installation becomes eligible, which at the time of this appeal is 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012,(known as “FIT Year 2”). But the proposal is to vary and reduce that rate at the endof the current year, not merely in relation to installations becoming eligible after themodifications come into effect but also in respect of those which became eligible inthe three and a half months before the modifications are brought into effect. It should be stressed that it is proposed that those installations which became eligible on or after 12 December 2011 will receive the higher FIT Year 2 tariff until the modificationcomes into effect on 1 April 2012, but thereafter they will receive the new lower rate.9.The Secretary of State took the view that following publication of the consultationdocument on 31 October 2011, those who were committed to the installation of asolar PV would have sufficient time, 6 weeks, to complete the installation and satisfythe criteria for eligibility to receive payments. They would receive the higher FITYear 2 rate of return without any reduction in the rate from 1 April 2012.10.However, the proposal to apply the April 2012 reduced rate to installations becomingeligible before that date created consternation. Proceedings were launched by thoseinvolved in the supply and installation of small-scale solar PV installations, and byFriends of the Earth championing a large number of community organisations, such associal housing schemes, village halls and schools. Their concern stems from the fear that the Secretary of State asserts a power to modify the system they believed had been established, a system which fixed the rate of return for the generating life of theinstallation (subject to a maximum period). In its place they fear that the Secretary of State wishes to substitute a system which is capable of reducing the rate of returneven in respect of installations which have previously become eligible for payment.11.An urgent hearing took place and Mitting J produced a judgment on 21 Decembe2011 which lost nothing in clarity by the speed with which it was produced. These proceedings are, in order to respond to the urgency, brought by way of an applicationfor permission to appeal and an appeal against the decision of Mitting J. Mitting J

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->