The whole thing is bonkers. A more detailed briefing on <i>exactly</i> what the change is: <a href="http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Stakeholder-briefing-business-rates-rooftop-solar-v0.8.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Sta...</a><p>The UK does not have property tax per se, it has "business rates" which are collected by the local authority. State schools are considered to be "businesses" (WTF#1), while private schools which are nearly always structured as "charities" do not have to pay rates (WTF#2).<p>Business rates are calculated based on the value of the building + fixed equipment (plant). This change counts solar panels producing energy used predominantly on the premises as "plant" and imposes a requirement to pay tax based on their capital value. (WTF#3). This does not apply to sites generating primarily for export (WTF#4).<p>It's unnecessarily penalising schools who bought panels in the hope that they could use the future guaranteed subsidies as income. But that's about what you'd expect from a Conservative government.<p>(Definition of "plant": <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_20000540_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_200005...</a> )<p>(The whole thing brings up an unforseen disadvantage of trying to do renewables through a "distorted free market" rather than just direct state action: people taking advantage of the subsidies are called "gaming the system", when the entire point of the subsidy policy was to pay them to do exactly that. Also, UK local government and schools funding is a collection of fudges to outdated systems, but nobody wants to go near that mess.)
I don't get the solar business in the UK.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance</a><p>$1000 worth of raw materials (photovoltaic cells) would be much better used in countries like Syria.<p>In Winter there is not much Sun / daylight hours, and the energy usage is higher due to heating and lightning so other electricity production methods need to provide 100% of the demand anyway.<p><pre><code> installation slowed by 85 percent
caused by the end of subsidies for solar farms and and incentives for homeowners
</code></pre>
It's even more outrageous after considering - homeowners are on richer than people who are renting. Giving taxpayers money to...<p><i>(I could never understood solar business in the the UK and rapid decline after subsidies has ended only proves the point)</i><p>Next time similar opportunity arise - I'll raise the money and hop on the bandwagon... :)
Link does not provide much information, here are more details:<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar-powered-schools-bill-business-rates-rise-england-wales" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar-po...</a><p>> <i>The Valuation Office Agency said last year that small non-domestic solar installations would no longer be exempt from rates and bigger solar systems already subjected to business rates would see a hike of 600-800%.</i><p>> <i>Solar-equipped private schools will duck the changes because of their charitable status. </i><p>I think it is a sign that solar electricity has matured, does not need subsidies, and can stand on its own (and be taxed the same way as other industries).
Trick of the oil lobby. First you give subsidies, then take them away in one fell swoop. It's very bad for the industry. They pulled the same crap in Nevada.
couldn't they say they no longer use them and disconnect them when someone comes to check? (this is how people get around paying their TV licence in the uk)<p>What I also don't get is that they are taxing state schools, it's like taking one's wallet from the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket.
A loss of a subsidy is a tax hike? Seems like that terminology is misleading while technically correct. If solar is so efficient why would it need a subsidy; wouldn't the market make it more desirable? If it isn't so efficient, then why subsidize it? It seems like the people that want solar should pay what it costs.