Solarcentury has confirmed its resignation from the British Photovoltaics Association (BPVA) after the association's Chairman applied to intervene in the legal case the day before the Court of Appeal hearing. The Court refused the application.

Yesterday, both the Secretary of State, Greg Barker and the Energy Minister, Chris Huhne commended the BPVA for its support in the court appeal.

“If we were to continue over-subsidising at the rate we that had before, then we would be able to install fewer than half of the installations we can afford to subsidise today under the new rate,” explained Huhne.

“It was not an accident that the British Photovoltaic Association intervened on our side in the courts precisely as a result of that calculation.”

However, Solarcentury, which had no knowledge of the BPVA’s intention to intervene, was outraged by the association’s move.

Derry Newman, CEO, Solarcentury 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.”

Speaking with the Solar Power Portal this afternoon, Reza Shaybani, the BPVA’s Chairman, clarified the association's position:

“We believe that the reference date of December 12 and the retrospective changes to law through secondary legislation are illegal,” he explained.

“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.

“We believe that Solarcentury has made their statement not knowing the above position of the BPVA. Since then we have spoken to Solarcentury and the situation has been clarified,” he concluded.

Update: January 30

The BPVA today published another statement explaining the reasons behind the court intervention:

“[The BPVA decided] 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.”