Electricity in UK Law

I am not persuaded that as a consequence of this review the appellant is being unfairly treated. They are in fact receiving the appropriate subsidy for someone incurring the costs involved in developing their particular technology. It is true that they were not obtaining the windfall resulting from the increase in electricity prices which they would have received had no error been made. It does not follow that it was unfair and an abuse of power to carry out a full review.

The RO scheme provides financial incentives for the creation of generation capacity from renewable sources. It does this in the form of Renewables Obligation Certificates ("ROC"). These are certificates issued to operators of accredited renewable generating stations in respect of the eligible renewable electricity that they generate.

To be eligible within the RO scheme electricity must be generated by a station that has been accredited by Ofgem as capable of generating renewable electricity in respect of which ROCs may be issued. The RO scheme is hence a demand led scheme with all generation satisfying the relevant conditions being accredited. For solar PV it is a relevant condition that the generating station must exceed 50 kilowatts in size.

If the Appellants had begun an action within six years of the vesting date, and had applied to the Minister for his decision when the Respondents traversed their allegation that the sum sued for had been held or used by the Respondents in their capacity of electricity undertakers, proceedings in the action could if necessary have been stayed to await the Minister's decision. But they did not do that and in my judgment this action is barred by section 2 (1) ( d) of the Limitation Act.

In my opinion, on vesting date the Appellants would have been able to issue a Writ containing a Statement of Claim claiming payment of the money, which statement would not have been struck out as disclosing no cause of action.

In my opinion the first governing principle is that a tariff which imposes a charge upon the Respondents involving their being unduly discriminated against is contrary to section 37 (8) of the Electricity Act, 1947. In principle the Appellants should not be permitted to retain payments for which they have no warrant to charge. The Respondents may therefore recover whatever sum they may be able to prove was in excess of such a charge as would have avoided undue discrimination against them.

It was not however until April 2002, according to Mr Contomichalos, that there was any further agreement between CGTL and Energa, although there remained an understanding between them at all times after expiry of the second joint co-operation agreement that Energa would be entitled to 20% of the profits on any electricity deal of the kind envisaged by that agreement.