RESULTADOS OBTENIDOS

Consultation question 1596 unique responses

Q28 Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the FITs legislation to refer to specific versions of relevant MCS standards? Please provide your reasoning?

This question covered the proposal to make a drafting change so that it 6.21.

was clear in the FITs legislation which versions of MCS installation standards that FITs installations should be installed against.

Summary of responses

Of those respondents who replied to the question, most did not indicate 6.22.

a preference either way for the proposal. Only approximately 22% of respondents expressed a definitive view, but were split equally in their agreement or disagreement. Responses were received from a mixture of renewable energy businesses, supplier companies, community

organisations, public bodies, trade associations, NGOs and individuals.

Agreement with proposal

Some of those who agreed felt that the proposal would protect against 6.23.

abuse of the system and ensure that the standards are met appropriately and would remove ambiguity. It was also highlighted that the approach would align with that already taken by the domestic and non-domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) schemes.

Various respondents who agreed with the proposal also set out a few 6.24.

concerns. These included the potential impact on existing FITs-accredited installations or installations not done recently that have yet to become accredited, with a few pointing to the need to refer to previous versions of

34

Paragraphs 90-95 of the 2014 State Aid approval for Contract for Difference for Renewables (SA.36196 2014/N): http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253263/253263_1583351_110_2.pdf

standards to ensure full coverage. Furthermore, it was claimed that the proposal should not restrict installers in designing and installing

microgeneration plant. It was also highlighted that it would be vital to ensure that legislation was kept up to date with developments in MCS standards, with some comments made about the need for a grace period before one version of a standard superseded another.

Disagreement with proposal

One of the themes running through many of the comments raised by 6.25.

those respondents who disagreed with the proposal was a concern that it would undermine or reduce the role of MCS in FITs. It was also felt by some that the proposal would lead to legislation not keeping track of developments in industry standards.

Some respondents suggested that the legislation should use a different 6.26.

referencing approach. For example, refer to the version of a standard that is ‘applicable at the time of installation’, or the ‘most current version’. Several respondents also suggested that there should be a period of overlap between an existing version of a standard no longer applying and a new version that is being implemented.

Others felt that the proposal would restrict industry to using MCS 6.27.

standards and suggested that other standards be used. There were also comments that MCS should work with industry to develop standards in the most cost-effective and timely way.

Further concerns related to extending the MCS requirement’s scope 6.28.

and the impact of the proposed change on existing accredited plant.

Government decision

The proposal set out in the consultation seeks to address a legal issue 6.29.

and relates to what can and cannot be done through secondary legislation. The current reference in the FITs legislation to MCS recognising an

installation as “satisfying relevant equipment and installation standards” means that MCS can potentially choose which standards to test against. In effect, this unintentionally sub-delegates to MCS the power to choose eligibility for FITs.

The proposal is not intended to alter the role that MCS plays in FITs. 6.30.

Therefore, the proposal does not, for example, extend the requirement of MCS certification in FITs to hydro (or AD) installations or to wind or PV installations above 50kW. Neither is the proposal intended to affect installations already accredited under FITs.

Furthermore, the FITs legislation already recognises schemes that are 6.31.

equivalent to MCS and this would be clarified in the amendment. It is to be noted that MCS offers more than just certification of products and

installations. It includes a robust consumer protection framework which has been important in building confidence in renewables and therefore

Regarding making sure that the legislation is updated whenever new 6.32.

versions of MCS standards are brought in, Government is working with MCS to establish an ongoing working arrangement through a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure this is achieved in the necessary timescales.

MCS develops new versions of its standards through a process that 6.33.

assesses technological developments and whether and how to reflect them. This includes consultation periods. In addition, MCS is an industry-led organisation, so already works closely with industry representatives.

Regarding suggested alternative drafting approaches put forward by 6.34.

some respondents, none avoid the issue of sub-delegation.

Having considered the objections raised by stakeholders, Government 6.35.

does not believe that they form a substantive challenge to the need to amend the FITs legislation, nor to the structure of the proposal. Therefore, Government intends to implement the proposal to amend the drafting of the FITs legislation in order to refer to specific versions of MCS standards.