Landlord agrees 1,000-home PV scheme
A landlord has appointed contractors to install solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of 1,000 tenants’ homes.
Ascham Homes has appointed John Rowan & Partners as project managers - with contractors Apollo and Breyer Plc - of the scheme to put PV panels on Waltham Forest Council tenants’ homes by March this year.
The contracts include the provision of 20 year warranties on the equipment, which passes the risk of any future costs for equipment failure to the installers and manufacturers.
The landlord claims it will be the largest solar panel scheme on social housing in London and will save tenants up to £140-a-year.
Homes with suitable south facing roofs and where the tenant has agreed will get the solar panels – predicted to cost £7,000 per home including installation - and households will be able to use the electricity generated for free.
The installation comes as Inside Housing reports of several landlords relaunching PV schemes in the wake of a High Court ruling that government plans to reduce FIT payments from 43.3p/kWh to 21p/kWh were ‘legally flawed’. The government has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court.
David Barrett, head of retrofit at JRP said: ‘While the focus is to complete the 1000 home installations to gain a year’s higher rate on the feed-in tariff, a matter that will be determined on 9 February with the outcome of DECC’s appeal, I would also hope that it also acts as encouragement to other affordable housing providers to show them that projects like this are commercially viable.
‘I for one are convinced that going forward PV panels will be part of the solution for affordable housing to deliver their obligations under the Climate Change Act.’
Paul Lowenberg chair of Ascham Homes said the installation of PV panels has three objectives.
He said: ‘First it will assist approximately 10 per cent of our tenants by reducing their electricity bills by 25 to 50 per cent.
‘Second it will reduce the carbon dioxide emitted in producing electricity for these homes by approximately 1200 Tons of CO2. This is like taking 500 cars off our roads.
‘Third, we hope over the 25 year life of the scheme it will achieve a savings of £1 to £2 million through the price of the electricity being sold back to the grid, which will enable other regeneration works to be undertaken in the Borough.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (30)
F451 | 27/01/2012 2:44 pm
Well done Ascham (although if £140 is 'up to 50%' of a tenant's annual bill the rest of us are being over-charged!)
Lower bills, but more importantly 25 years of generation into the grid for all of us to benefit from, and the potential of technology advances making the replacement at that time even more effective.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
rta92 | 27/01/2012 4:38 pm
Cheaper bills for the tenants and feed-in tariffs for the landlord paid for by the rest of us. Can they come and put them on my house as well?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sexton | 27/01/2012 8:59 pm
Dutch companies are happy about this?
Was this OJEUed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Rider | 29/01/2012 0:11 am
Interesting maths here - the figures work out at about 1400kWh of solar energy produced per home, so the saving of up to £140 per home equates to the tenant using the entire 1400kWh of free solar energy instead of having to pay for energy from the grid at around 10p per unit (which is a typical second tier tariff).
The tenant will still have to pay for energy from the grid at the first-tier tariff up to 900kWh, because this price includes the standing charge. (900kWh at 20p = £180).
For the tenant to make the saving mentioned, all the solar energy has to be used by the tenant for free, and therefore there will be no solar energy fed back into the grid at all.
If there is no energy sold back to the grid, then there will be no £1-2 million of benefit for the Borough.
If the tenant is not at home during the day and is unable to use the 1400kWh of solar energy for free, I assume it goes to the grid. The tenant does not get paid for the energy that goes to the grid - the landlord is paid the FIT not the tenant, (because this is how it is claimed there will be a benefit to the Borough).
So, the reality will be that few if any tenants will benefit from savings on the scale mentioned. Also the savings to the tenants and the benefits to the Borough are mutually exclusive - you can't have both. As one benefits the other loses the benefit.
As for "all of us" benefitting from the energy fed into the grid as F451 laughably mentions - this is ignoring the fact that the rest of us are having to pay higher energy bills to pay the 43p/unit FIT in the first place! I don't call that a benefit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Benson-Phillips | 30/01/2012 9:58 am
The numbers have been massaged somewhat do make the scheme seem more beneficial than it probably will be. Don't understand why they felt the need to do that, there is ample justification for going ahead with schemes like this.
Gavin - think your views on this stuff are pretty difficult to take seriously, what with you denying the existence of any man made effect on climate change. The FIT scheme currently costs £1.40 for every bill payer. Is that too expensive for you to support an industry employing 25,000 people?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 30/01/2012 10:03 am
I think Gavin may be a little over obsessed with my every word - can that be healthy?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Lowenberg | 30/01/2012 10:37 am
Unfortunately Gavin Rider fails to understand the FiT scheme so desribes the Ascham Homes strategy completely wrong. The FiT scheme pays the landlord for all electricity generated, both that used by the tenant and that sold back to the grid.
At Ascham Homes we have built our 25 year business model on the assumption that the tenant will use 50% of the energy, but our model is still sustainable if the tenant uses 100% of the energy and we would be delighted if they do.
It is a win/win opportunity. We are able to pay off a 25 year loan used to finance the installation costs at the same time as the tenant gets free use of whatever electricity they are able to use.
We have based our business plan on the assumption that Waltham Forest Council as the landlord will get the Government announced lower FiT rate of 21p per unit of electricity generated, not the higher rate of 43p that was applicable before the cut off date of 12 December. If the Government loses its supreme court challenge and we ultimately recieve the 43p rate, it will mean a larger sum available to the community for regeneration, but this is not the basis upon which we have basis our plans.
In terms of electricity being generated and the savings for each tenant, again Gavin has it wrong. We anticipate that each installation will generate 2060KWh of electricity in the first year. This is in line with best practice European assessments for London. How much of this will be used by tenants will of course depend on personal circumstances. Tenants can maximise the opportunity by ensuring that high use appliances like washing machines are used during the day whenever possible.
The typical tenant energy bill savings of £140 per year is based on them using 50% of the electricity generated at the current average electricity charge in London. How much each tenant's bill will be reduced by depends both on how much total electricity they use in a year and how much of this they get in future from the free Solar produced on their roof. It is entirely possible for the tenant to achieve an overall savings of 25 to 50% in electricity bill.
Finally, it is true that the basis of the solar energy scheme in the UK is that the FiT rate paid is part of the overall costing of electricity in the country. This will have a very small impact on the overall electricity rates charged to consumers, but that is exactly how a market economy should be tweated, is it not? Do we are do we not want to reduce carbon emissions in the UK and at the same time promote community based sustainable solutions?
It is really disappointing that readers of Inside Housing have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Solar PV scheme.
We are generating clean energy, achieving a significant savings for our tenants, will repay the cost of installation and maintenance of the scheme over its 25 year life and achieve a small but beneficial fund for community regeneration.
Why criticise one of the very few opportunities in the country to implement an effective anti-proverty measure, carbon reduction, community regeneration and job creation?
Paul Lowenberg, Chair of Ascham Homes
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Benson-Phillips | 30/01/2012 11:28 am
Hopefully that comment isn't aimed at me - having worked in the solar industry, I am pro solar schemes of this nature. My only negative is that I think the numbers quoted are potentially a little high. I don't think they are unachievable, just unlikely. That said, I believe the scheme will be a massive benefit to tenants, Ascham Homes and the community as a whole.
F451 - I do believe that Gavin hangs on your every word!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Awdas | 30/01/2012 12:46 pm
In reply to Sexton, Was this OJEUed? Ascham homes will be using the Retrofit for Housing: Solar PV, Solar Thermal and Voltage Optimisers framework agreement which is fully compliant with EU Procurement Regulations
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 30/01/2012 12:52 pm
Hi Dave - there was a very successful campaign in Somerset against renewable energy, and as a result a wind farm option was cancelled and a new nuclear power station approved instead. Now the campaigners are demanding that no car parking is included in the site, and against unsightly power masts. Add their local councillors' (if Gavin is representative) anti solar stance and that leaves either the tidal barrage or burning fossil fuels.
It is astonishing the narrow view of some people, unable to see the advantage of a mix of renewable, with non-renewables to support, as the optimum way of achieving less polution at a balance of affordability. If only we still owned our own power generation and supply companies, the cost implications could be so much more positive - but then the same narrow minds are anti public ownership too.
I still say, well done Ascham, and hope more can squeeze in through the window of opportunity to install as much solar generation as is possible, before the government turn out the lights on such programmes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment