We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Energy and Climate Change written question – answered on 12th December 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Barry Gardiner Barry Gardiner Labour, Brent North

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

(1) what proportion of the spending envelope for the feed-in tariff for each year of the current spending review period is allocated to projects accredited between 1 April 2010 and 31 October 2011;

(2) what proportion of the spending envelope for the feed-in tariff for each year of the current spending review period is allocated for new projects accredited in that year.

Photo of Gregory Barker Gregory Barker The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change

New installations in any year are not specifically allocated a proportion of the feed-in tariffs (FITs) budget. The available amount in the budget for new installations in any year is impossible to predict in advance, as it will depend on the level of installations in previous years. This is because the budget is cumulative, and must cover the cost of projects accredited in previous years of the scheme as well as new projects.

We estimate the proportion of the levies control framework spending envelope taken up by projects accredited up to 31 October to be as follows:

Costs to consumers 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total
£ million, nominal undiscounted          
FITs costs (rounded) 110 215 220 230 775
FITs budget (revised) 94 196 328 446 1,064
Costs as percentage of revised budget (rounded) 120 110 65 50 70
FITs budget (original) 80 161 269 357 867
Costs as percentage of original budget (rounded) 140 135 80 65 90

The table above shows the committed spend on FITs as a proportion of both the original and revised FITs spending limits. The spending limit for FITs as originally published—the fourth line of the table—referred to projected additional expenditure over and above the baseline of installations of less than 5 MW that would have been deployed in the absence of the FITs scheme (because some of those small-scale installations would have come forward under the renewables obligation (RO)).

In the revised estimate of the FITs spending limit—the second line of the table—that baseline has been incorporated into the spending limit for FITs, as we judge that the small scale installations are more likely to take up FITs in preference to the RO. The effect of this adjustment is to increase the FITs spending envelope (as shown in the table) and reduce the RO spending envelope by the same amount, compared with the original spending limits published for each scheme. This is a technical adjustment to the published spending limits which merely provides a more accurate picture of the money that was always available for each of the two schemes. We have not made more subsidy available overall, but DECC still has flexibility on how it meets the overall levies control framework as long as expenditure as a whole is controlled i.e. overspend on one policy can be balanced by underspend in another.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.