Tariff advice and metering for second array

[matt25]

Hi, im after some clarification on the tariffs for a second array please. Basically there is a 16kWp array istalled on a college early last year, the college now want a second 30kWp array on the same building, what tariff rate would they expect to recieve for the second array? Also wondered if there are there any specific metering requirements, i had assumed a second and seperate generation meter would be ok?

many thanks in advance
Matt

 

[Eco-Deal]

The second array would be classed as 30 kwp PLUS what ever size the first system is !

From that you can determine the tariff level

 

[matt25]

For some reason i thought a second array on the same building is only be paid at 90% of the applicable Fit rate, therfore in this case 90% of 13.05p, is this completely wrong then?!

 

[Eco Deal]

I far I I know its 80% if you own 25 or more installations! dont quote me on that ,

 

[Ian-LS]

I far I I know its 80% if you own 25 or more installations! dont quote me on that ,

Sorry I've quoted you on that, its actually 90% of full FIT rate aftere DECC decided 80% was too low but it is for 25 or more installations.

OP - You'll get the FIT rate of 10-50 kW for the additional PV system which is 13.5p/kWh currently and will drop to 13.03 p/kWh after Nov 1st. Also bear in mind that you may need to get an export meter installed is the total capacity is over 30 kW, though again don't quote me on that point just investigate it further.

 

[Worcester]

@Matt25, the reduction only applies if they own lots of PV systems.
The rate for the new systems is as ECO-Deal has answered i.e 10kwp-50kWp band, note this rate is dependant upon the COMMISSIONING DATE of the second array, and the building must ALREADY HAVE ACHIEVED and EPC rating of D or greater, with an EPC issued BEFORE THE COMMISSIONING DATE, hence this array can't be used to achieve that rating. With an extension, the date of the submission of the FIT application form is secondary to the commissioning date for the application of a FIT rate.
You may or may not need a second meter, depends upon how it's going to be connected , often it is simpler just to install a second one. If only one, their FIT provider may apply some kind of pro-rata.

Depending upon the orientation and efficiencies of the two systems, pro-rata can be good or bad - the 'older installtion, may benefit from more at the higher rate if the new install generates a greater kWh/kWp due to how it;s installed

They need to speak to their FIT provider for specific guidance if they want to use one meter. By default we would normally install an additional mater just for the additional system - it makes life simpler

 

[Worcester]

Export is only deemed (at 50%) for systems up to 30kWp, above that if you want to be paid for export it would need to be metered, most systems around 40-50kWp wont recover the cost of metering (HH for export at that size) so don't bother - though sometimes the DNO insisits on metering even if not being claimed.
I don't know how they will treat either the original installation, or the extension in this case - TedM might know!

 

[Ian-LS]

" and the building must ALREADY HAVE ACHIEVED and EPC rating of D or greater, with an EPC issued BEFORE THE COMMISSIONING DATE, hence this array can't be used to achieve that rating "

Where are you getting this from? you don't already need to have an EPC of D or above, as far as I understand you can use the PV to count towards the EPC rating. This would involve a non domestic EPC assessor plugging the proposed PV system into the EPC software to predict the EPC then producing a full one once the installation is installed. With 46 kWp of PV I'd be suprised if the building wouldn't have an EPC of D or above

​

 

[Worcester]

It's specifically to do with extensions.

There's a full discussion about it in the SunLounge, ( http://www.electriciansforums.net/sun-lounge/62043-warning-extensions-epcs.html ) that link won't work unless you are a Sunlounge member, here's the summary:

From the Ofgem Guidance document
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Info/Documents1/FIT supplier guidance.pdf

6.8. The original installation will retain its tariff rate and eligibility period, but the extension will have its own eligibility period and tariff rate. The eligibility date for the extension will be based on its commissioning date only, as the application date is that of the original installation. This means that different eligibility periods may apply to different components of an accredited FIT installation. Payments to the extension will accrue from its eligibility date; therefore the start generation meter reading must be captured on the eligibility date.

And the EPC has to be issued BEFORE the eligibility date, i.e. the extension can't be taken into account for the EPC

 

[FB.]

" and the building must ALREADY HAVE ACHIEVED and EPC rating of D or greater, with an EPC issued BEFORE THE COMMISSIONING DATE, hence this array can't be used to achieve that rating "

Where are you getting this from? you don't already need to have an EPC of D or above, as far as I understand you can use the PV to count towards the EPC rating.

Yes, I know someone who was EPC band E before installation and the addition of 4kWp PV bumped them up to low-C, allowing them to claim the higher FiT (21p as it was at the time).
No other work was required, or at least only very minor changes since their first EPC. The PV took their EPC rating from 48pts (EPC dated Feb-2011) to 76pts (EPC dated May-2012).

 

[Worcester]

See this also re meter:

6.10. If the original installation and extension share the same generation meter, a pro rata calculation from the generation meter reading taken on the extension‟s eligibility date should be used to determine how much electricity generated is assigned to each part. The CFR contains details on how generation payments should be split for multiple installations using the same generation meter.

6.11. If one of the installations sharing the meter becomes ineligible for FITs, for example because the eligibility period of the original installation has come to an end, the extension must have a separate meter installed to ensure that it remains eligible for FITs.

 

[Worcester]

Just to reiterate,

My comments related SPECIFICALLY to EXTENSIONS to existing installations

New installations are different, and the PV can be used.

 

[TedM]

Ian, I know it's ridiculous isn't it. But it is OFGEM official guidance from http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Documents1/FIT generator guidance.pdf The Eligibility Date of an extension is to be the same as the Commissioning Date (something I don't agree with from the purely legal pov and the document is internally inconsistent on this as well).

 

[Worcester]

Quote from TedM (it needs to be the same day... )

So OFGEM are telling suppliers that an extension must have an Eligibility Date the same as the Commissioning Date - there is no legal definition in FiTs that supports this.

The upshot is currently that an extension will need to have an EPC dated the same day as the Commissioning Date in order for the customer to get the higher tariff. If it is dated the day after or later then suppliers will put them on the 7.1p tariff as they will not have shown that they had an EPC 'D' rating on the relevant date.

 

[Worcester]

Just to add, it seems that this was all initially highlighted by an application that went in to EDF - see other thread about EDF and returning an application....

 

[Ian-LS]

Just to add, it seems that this was all initially hihlighted by an application that went in to EDF - see other thread about EDF and returning an application....

Thanks for the heads up regarding this, I wasn't aware that extensions needed to have an EPC of D or above before the PV was installed and that the PV extenion can't be included in the EPC. To be honest I and a lot of other installers are sick of the constant moving of the goal posts by Ofgem and DECC. An extention to a PV system is still a PV system and so the same rule should apply across the board.

I think I might bang my head against a brick wall in the office, grrrr

 

[matt25]

Many thanks to all for your advice, i am glad i aksed!

 

[matt25]

For your info I also emailed ofgem at the time of making my original post, their response is as follows

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your query.

I refer to Feed-in Tariff: Guidance for Renewable Installations V4. Any extensions to an existing accredited site using the same technology will be assessed as a separate eligible installation. If successfully accredited, the extension will be assigned a separate eligibility period and separate tariff code based on the aggregate TIC of both the extension and existing FIT installation. Both installations will, however, share the same FIT ID on the Central FIT Register (CFR) - the register on which all installation details are stored. The previously accredited FIT installation will continue to receive the tariff it was initially assigned when it was accredited.

As administrators of the FIT scheme we are obliged to assess and, where appropriate accredit, applications that have been made to us in respect of renewable generating stations. We assess such applications on a case by case basis, based on the supporting evidence submitted with the application and the circumstances specific to the generating station in question. The information provided in your email is only a part of what we would consider when assessing an application. There are a number of eligibility criteria that have to be met if a generating station is to be granted accreditation under the FITs. You should ensure that you are familiar with these criteria by referring to Ofgem’s ‘Feed-in Tariffs: Guidance for Renewable Installations V4’ in advance of making an application to us.

As our guidance documents sets out, in terms of eligibility and tariff questions such as these, we cannot provide any formal comfort prior to an application for accreditation being made to us and our remit as administrators of the scheme is not to provide legal, financial nor technical advice. We would always encourage stakeholders to seek such advice independently as appropriate and put proposals forward to us on application for accreditation.

Kind Regards