Warning - Extensions and EPCs

[TedM]

Over on the Navitron Forum one user with a PV system that has recently been extended has highlighted a problem.

He had a system installed before EPCs came in and has had an extension installed and commissioned in July this year - just before the 1st August deadline.

He previously did not have an EPC but obviously needed one for the extension.

He had his system installed and commissioned on 26th July and the EPC done on 27th July.

EDF, his FiT supplier, have said that he must go on the 9p rate for the extension as he did not have an EPC 'D' on the required date. They have cited OFGEM guidance on this from here http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Info/Documents1/FIT supplier guidance.pdf which, coincidentally, was published on 26th July.

This, at section 6.8, says:

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.

(my emphasis)

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 9p (or now 7.1p) tariff as they will not have shown that they had an EPC 'D' rating on the relevant date.

I am writing to DECC about this aspect of OFGEM's guidance as I cannot see that it is legally supported.

Article 15 of the 2010 FiTs Order (as amended) states quite categorically that extensions must be treated as separate eligible installations. This, to me, means that they should have their Eligibility Date set independently of any existing system.

 

[Worcester]

@TedM
Many thanks, So we have one customer that had an original installation done last November, and an extension done in July commissioning date 27th July, - we knew an EPC was required, and the EPC came back better than D dated 16th July.

So if I read this correctly, from the guidelines above
(a) he should be OK at the higher April-July rate (EPC before comissioning date)
and
(b) here's the interesting one - he could have applied anytime he liked - even today and still got the higher April-July rate ?
I bet that one would go down well with Eon et al.

----------------------
Added:

Also he has told by his fit provider that the reading from his (new) generation meter taken on the commissioning date was not acceptable and that a reading must be taken on the date the form was submitted on line was needed.

So in that case they are wrong?
42 more units - it's not the units - it's the principle - what if they applied now - would the reading be backdated to the comissioning date?

 

[solarsavings]

I don't understand this.

There have been systems installed in my area that would not have made a D before the pv was installed but once installed they achieved at least a D rating. So from the above it seems they could all end up on the lower rate, or am I reading it wrong.

 

[Gavin A]

I don't understand this.

There have been systems installed in my area that would not have made a D before the pv was installed but once installed they achieved at least a D rating. So from the above it seems they could all end up on the lower rate, or am I reading it wrong.

it only applies to extensions to existing systems.

 

[TedM]

Yes, it is only for extensions. If you have an EPC 'D' before the PV extension is installed then there is no problem. It is only if you are relying on the extended PV system to get a 'D' - so it needs to be there when the EPC is carried out - and the EPC is dated after the Commissioning Date for the extension then there is an issue.

I'm not sure how this tallies with the latest advice being given to DEAs, but were they not being told that any PV system would need to be commissioned before they could accept it under an EPC assessment? Can anyone remember reading about that?

 

[TedM]

So if I read this correctly, from the guidelines above
(a) he should be OK at the higher April-July rate (EPC before comissioning date)
and
(b) here's the interesting one - he could have applied anytime he liked - even today and still got the higher April-July rate ?
I bet that one would go down well with Eon et al.

----------------------
Added:

Also he has told by his fit provider that the reading from his (new) generation meter taken on the commissioning date was not acceptable and that a reading must be taken on the date the form was submitted on line was needed.

So in that case they are wrong?
42 more units - it's not the units - it's the principle - what if they applied now - would the reading be backdated to the comissioning date?

Yes, OFGEM are expressly saying that for extensions the Eligibility Date can only be the Commissioning Date - which would have to apply irrespective of when you inform your FiT supplier. Any application date is irrelevant as the original date for the pre-extended system still applies. And yes, the meter reading must be from the Commissioning Date.

It's a quite crazy interpretation by OFGEM, but I can see how they have arrived at it.

 

[Gavin A]

Yes, it is only for extensions. If you have an EPC 'D' before the PV extension is installed then there is no problem. It is only if you are relying on the extended PV system to get a 'D' - so it needs to be there when the EPC is carried out - and the EPC is dated after the Commissioning Date for the extension then there is an issue.

I'm not sure how this tallies with the latest advice being given to DEAs, but were they not being told that any PV system would need to be commissioned before they could accept it under an EPC assessment? Can anyone remember reading about that?

hmm, they were told photo + MCS cert, but then they were told they had to actually visit to verify the system themselves and carry out the EPC survey at the same time themselves, at which point I presume the MCS cert requirement should have gone out of the window.

I think the way around this could actually be to get the EPC assessor in to do the assessment after the PV system is installed, but then go back and actually fully commission the system and get the MCS cert for it once the EPC has been registered.

Olympic hoop jumping competition is obviously still going at DECCGEM I see.

 

[TedM]

If there is a doc saying the DEA must see the MCS cert before being allowed to include the PV into the EPC assessment then that would make OFGEM's guidance totally nonsensical - which it already is but would be some sort additional objective proof

I note that Section 6 of MIS 3002 v2.1 says:

The generation of the certificate shall be undertaken in full compliance with the terms and conditions of use of the MCS Installation Database and the registration of the system on the MCS installation database shall only be undertaken after the system has been fully installed and commissioned.

which helps the argument as it clarifies that the MCS Cert can only exist once commissioning has been completed. So if there was also written advice to DEA's to require them to have sight of the MCS Cert when they carry out their assessment then that would close the loop and prove the absurdity of OFGEM's position.

Must go and have a chat with one of my neighbours who is a DEA.

 

[Gavin A]

as I say, that advice was issued when they were allowing a provisional EPC assessment before the install, and a final cert issued afterwards without the assessor needing to make a second survey on site, using just the photo and MCS cert as evidence.

that guidance is now revoked, and I don't think there is anything requiring the certificate to be used as evidence for the EPC if they're actually assessing it on site themselves, although how they'll know what size system it is without it would be the main query on that front.

 

[Eco Deal]

It was me that installed M's System on the Navitron site ! caught us both out !!!!

hope he sorts it

 

[sambotc]

Can you not just re-commission it and re-apply?

 

[Eco Deal]

Well hes in talks with EDF.

He knows his stuff which I glad of so hes doing the calls to EDF etc,

I can not resubmit EPC as I will have to conduct the epc again he will be in worst position as now

 

[Gavin A]

I'm so glad I didn't offer to do that one

 

[Worcester]

When we had one EPC done, the assesor said that the MCS certificate wasn't adequate, he insisted on reading the spec from the panels, and then doing the kWp calculation himself. As it happened they were accesible, (kind of - roof hatch onto flat roof) - if they werent I don't know what he would have done - read the contract we issued or the hanover document?

 

[Worcester]

Does an MCS Certificate have to be issued that day it is comissioned? Can it be issued say two days later? I've never checked the guidleines on that as we alsywas have dated them same day.

 

[solarsavings]

He had his system installed and commissioned on 26th July and the EPC done on 27th July

What i don't understand is how someone can have a system installed prior to having an epc done as quoted above and then claim the higher rate. We know this is often done because a house won't reach a D without first having the pv installed.

And yet if you extend your existing system a different set of rules apply.

 

[Gavin A]

Does an MCS Certificate have to be issued that day it is comissioned? Can it be issued say two days later? I've never checked the guidleines on that as we alsywas have dated them same day.

I think REAL rules are within 10 days, I've never seen any deadlines on the MCS site.

 

[BruceB]

There is little to stop MEP altering the date on the MCS cert to one day later, which would align everything.

Edit: I see from the other place that is what has happened!

In answer to an earlier point by Worcester, I am not a DEA, but I believe that they input kWp of panels into their calculation rather than DNC or TIC. So the MCS certificate is good evidence of a pv array. but they might feel the need to count panels etc.

 

[TedM]

Yes, aligning the Commissioning Date with the day-later EPC date solves the problem for M, but that seems to be a justifiable change in those particular circumstances (his system test was actually carried out on the 27th not the 26th) that will not apply to everyone else.

For the DEA counting panels is OK but how do they find out the rated kWp of each panel?

OFGEM's guidance remains flawed IMO.

 

[TedM]

The Navitron thread is here for anyone who hasn't already seen it - Epc at a later date.

 

[solarsavings]

The Navitron thread is here for anyone who hasn't already seen it - Epc at a later date.

Thanks for posting this link Ted.

 

[BruceB]

For the DEA counting panels is OK but how do they find out the rated kWp of each panel?

Hopefully recorded in that very smart PV Manual that MCS installers give their customers....

 

[Eco Deal]

I do the EPC survey with the solar survey .

so My EPC's survey date could be say the 1st then the customer might not sign up till 10th then we do install say 17th then I add the panels to the EPC to bump it up some extra points as it valid for 10 years , so why have a epc without the panels.

 

[Gavin A]

Hopefully recorded in that very smart PV Manual that MCS installers give their customers....

ay, but not before it's been commissioned.

 

[Worcester]

Reminds me of that classic film Catch 22 !!
(the only way to get out of the army is to be classified insane, if you're in the army, to want to be classified insane, you can't be insane !)