Up until a fortnight ago, I was planning to cash in on the generous 43.Enecsys Limited, supplier of reliable solar Air purifier systems,3p per KWh Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) for solar panels.ceramic magic cube for the medical, My plans were scuppered, however, by news that the government intends to pull back the eligibility date from 1 April 2012 to 12 December 2011 and more than halve the payment to 21p per KWh for latecomers. So it looks like there won’t be solar panels gracing one south facing roof in North West London.
But then again, the bloody-minded aggression with which the changes are being made looks like it could send so many installation firms to the wall that I may end up with panels at bargain-basement prices; cheap enough to justify the investment after all! Okay, I’m being flippant. Even a hardened investment writer like me can see there is a broader issue here involving fundamental questions about how growth is to be achieved in our stagnant economy.
Firstly, there are good grounds for changing the FiT model. It was originally intended that guaranteed, inflation-linked, 25-year payments would slowly reduce to 18.8p KWh in 2020. However, the cost of panels and installations have fallen markedly since the inception of the policy meaning returns had begun to look too generous. And costs of the scheme, which are borne through our utility bills, have been pushed up by a larger than expected take up. Indeed,Polycore oil paintings for sale are manufactured as a single sheet, most people in the industry seem to have accepted the need for change.
However, the sudden change of the eligibility date was not anticipated.100 China ceramic tile was used to link the lamps together. It is likely to mean many small and medium sized installation businesses are unable to get jobs done in time and is likely to leave them with significant amounts of stock that they will already have paid for in anticipation of strong demand up to 1 April. This is the kind of cash flow crisis every businessman dreads and the government is responsible. In a survey of 139 firms this month, industry bodies the Renewable Energy Association and STA found that one third of respondents thought they may go out of business due to the changes to FiT and 42 per cent of jobs were expected to go.
If businesses do go to the wall, a significant amount of the money that both the private sector and utility-bill payers have already invested in the solar industry’s future growth (jobs and tax revenues) could be wasted. Indeed, as an illustration of the money being flush down the tubes,Whilst RUBBER SHEET are not deadly, social-housing maintenance group Mears last week announced it would close its solar business, write off 2m invested in it and said operating profits would fall 2.8m shy of the City’s expectations. A number of commentators have suggested this nascent industry is being killed at birth due to the unnecessary severity of the changes. The government, on the other hand, says a quick change was necessary to ensure the sustainability of the industry.
This is not public sector austerity quashing growth, though. The public is feeling the pinch through utility bills and not tax bills. Perhaps the idea – if there is one – is that leaving money in people’s pockets is a better way to stimulate growth (even if large amounts of past investment risk being written off) than giving a subsidised kick start to a fledgling industry that shows signs of growth potential?
Perhaps the most potential damage from the change to FiT, should it prove to be overly aggressive, is the message it sends to would-be private sector investors (we’ve a few nuclear power stations to fund as I remember). If investors get the impression that policies towards business are simply partisan and liable to change willy-nilly with every change of government, then rational investment decisions simply can’t be made.
But then again, the bloody-minded aggression with which the changes are being made looks like it could send so many installation firms to the wall that I may end up with panels at bargain-basement prices; cheap enough to justify the investment after all! Okay, I’m being flippant. Even a hardened investment writer like me can see there is a broader issue here involving fundamental questions about how growth is to be achieved in our stagnant economy.
Firstly, there are good grounds for changing the FiT model. It was originally intended that guaranteed, inflation-linked, 25-year payments would slowly reduce to 18.8p KWh in 2020. However, the cost of panels and installations have fallen markedly since the inception of the policy meaning returns had begun to look too generous. And costs of the scheme, which are borne through our utility bills, have been pushed up by a larger than expected take up. Indeed,Polycore oil paintings for sale are manufactured as a single sheet, most people in the industry seem to have accepted the need for change.
However, the sudden change of the eligibility date was not anticipated.100 China ceramic tile was used to link the lamps together. It is likely to mean many small and medium sized installation businesses are unable to get jobs done in time and is likely to leave them with significant amounts of stock that they will already have paid for in anticipation of strong demand up to 1 April. This is the kind of cash flow crisis every businessman dreads and the government is responsible. In a survey of 139 firms this month, industry bodies the Renewable Energy Association and STA found that one third of respondents thought they may go out of business due to the changes to FiT and 42 per cent of jobs were expected to go.
If businesses do go to the wall, a significant amount of the money that both the private sector and utility-bill payers have already invested in the solar industry’s future growth (jobs and tax revenues) could be wasted. Indeed, as an illustration of the money being flush down the tubes,Whilst RUBBER SHEET are not deadly, social-housing maintenance group Mears last week announced it would close its solar business, write off 2m invested in it and said operating profits would fall 2.8m shy of the City’s expectations. A number of commentators have suggested this nascent industry is being killed at birth due to the unnecessary severity of the changes. The government, on the other hand, says a quick change was necessary to ensure the sustainability of the industry.
This is not public sector austerity quashing growth, though. The public is feeling the pinch through utility bills and not tax bills. Perhaps the idea – if there is one – is that leaving money in people’s pockets is a better way to stimulate growth (even if large amounts of past investment risk being written off) than giving a subsidised kick start to a fledgling industry that shows signs of growth potential?
Perhaps the most potential damage from the change to FiT, should it prove to be overly aggressive, is the message it sends to would-be private sector investors (we’ve a few nuclear power stations to fund as I remember). If investors get the impression that policies towards business are simply partisan and liable to change willy-nilly with every change of government, then rational investment decisions simply can’t be made.
没有评论:
发表评论