Solar FiT row deepens as trade body says it did not act alone

The BPVA said it was "incorrect and not accurate" to say it was the only trade association supporting the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and had discussed the issue with the Micropower Council and the Renewable Energy Association prior to its legal intervention.

However, both the MPC and the REA immediately distanced themselves from the claim saying they refused to have anything to do with the application to the court on the eve of last week's Government defeat in the Court of Appeal.

A spokesman for the REA told ClickGreen: "We did meet with the BPVA to discuss this issue but there's a reason why there's only one association name on the court application."

And Dave Sowden, chief executive of the MPC, explained that while his association shared concerns of a new bubble of consumer demand, it was important for the judicial process to run its course and the Government to be defeated.

In a further statement this afternoon, Sowden explained: "The BPVA has published a statement on its intervention in the FiTs Court of Appeal proceedings. BPVA’s statement could be interpreted to mean that the MPC supported the intervention, it did not.

"We were asked by the BPVA to support its intervention and responded that in the timescales presented, we would be unlikely to gain any mandate from our Executive Committee on the matter. We did not therefore take a position on the issue and this was made clear to BPVA."

Earlier, the BPVA had tried to justify its last-minute attempt to intervene in the case, which was subsequently rejected by Lord Justice Lloyd.

The group said they had launched the bid "to intervene, not on the basis of the legality of the date of the 12th December, nor on the legality of making retrospective changes to law through secondary legislation, but because of the following:

"The majority of our members feel tariff levels should be reduced, and they wish there to be clarity and stability of the Feed-in tariff as soon as possible. The longer the higher tariff levels persist, the more rapidly the budget will be depleted. This would not be in the long-term interests of the solar industry or the other technologies supported by the Feed-in tariff.

"Prior to the legal intervention, we consulted with MPC and REA with regard to the above so, the statement published by Solarcentury saying we acted alone and the only trade association supporting DECC was incorrect and not accurate."

Last week, Solarcentury resigned from the organisation saying it had acted alone and without consultation.

Derry Newman, Solarcentury ceo, said: "We cannot understand how a trade body claiming to represent the best interests of the UK PV industry could have arrived at such a position, nor why the BPVA is supporting the right of the department to make retrospective changes to the feed-in tariff at any time, thus jeopardising all future investor interest in PV and other FiT technologies.

"Of all trade bodies in this sector, the BPVA alone has allowed itself to be used in a classic Government 'divide and rule' manoeuvre. By contrast, other trade bodies including the Solar Trade Association and Renewable Energy Association have recognised what is at stake in this case and in particular, the disastrous long-term implications of DECC getting their way."