Ripple CFD vote.....

[Tinbum]

I'm baffled- got an e mail about the vote being indicative because they didn't follow the notice rules which i had already heard about. Thats all ok but then they say-

Although this is only an indicative vote, we anticipate the board would require a similar threshold of at least 75% of all votes cast choosing "Yes" (please note - this is 75% of votes cast, not 75% of all Coop members) to include the Coop's share of the project in the CfD application.


But CDF applications have to be in by the 19th April and they can't have a general meeting before then. So are they not having a general meeting but I thought one was required to change the rules.

[AE-NMidlands]

I'm baffled- got an e mail about the vote being indicative because they didn't follow the notice rules which i had already heard about. Thats all ok but then they say-

Although this is only an indicative vote, we anticipate the board would require a similar threshold of at least 75% of all votes cast choosing "Yes" (please note - this is 75% of votes cast, not 75% of all Coop members) to include the Coop's share of the project in the CfD application.


But CDF applications have to be in by the 19th April and they can't have a general meeting before then. So are they not having a general meeting but I thought one was required to change the rules.

Perhaps they have got too many balls in the air...

I would like to hedge my bets, and as I have a stake in both KH and DW I would like one to go one way and one the other.
I note that the commercial (Virgin/Nationwide?) stake is going for the CFD, it's a pity that (as it is clearly being split) some of us can't go in with that.

It would be a shame if both KH and DW coop votes are split 50/50, when more of us would be happy if we knew which way to vote to swing one of them one way (to CFD) and the other stay as is.

[Joeboy]

I voted no to both cfd proposals. If by some remote stroke of fortune either site develops in a way I'm not aligned with I'll jump after two years if there are buyers around.

No worries really.



Does make me wonder if the 6 month contract for price per kWh will become a thing? I did notice that they are getting slippery in their communication of backsliding. Latest was one turbine to be energised by the end of April at KH.

I don't suppose it can be easy to manage reality to people's expectations and then communicate it in a positive fashion?

Then the politics of herding cats, re cfd's.

[nowty]

Have I got this right, if someone builds a WT or a solar farm and they are paid more than 7.5p /kwh for what they produce,they pay 45% tax on the surplus.
I assume this will have been agreed by some quango who were being subsidised by Saudi armaco……
That should get lots of interest.
That almost as dumb as charging EV owners 80-90p /kwh at public chargers including vat at 20%.
They wonder why EV sales are slowing

They need to produce over 50GWh/yr and various expenses are also deductable, and does not apply if there is a CfD in place etc. It's a goverment thing so never as simple as it could be...

There is also indexing on the 7.5p rate but it is on the whole income (not profit) with a £10m allowance. Expenses have to be exceptional, not the normal running costs.

Europe also have a tax but it only kicks in at around 16p / kWh.

The point I was trying to make is that for KH (to an extent) and for P4 the idea that you could get a rebate of similar in size to the GF 27p / kWh is unlikely in the event of war or whatever because there would be likely windfall taxes imposed. Either with the current rules or new ones.

Ofgem has made it very clear they want to decouple wholesale prices from gas which means CFDs, long term PPAs or punitive charges. So for wind per kWh you need 2p for operating expenses, 1p for capital repayment, 1p for finance and 1p to 2p for profit. Therefore a regulated price of onshore wind would be expected to be around 5p to 6p / kWh and a CFD gives you that guaranteed with indexing.

Without a CFD there is no protection from low gas prices or the imposition of locational pricing. On the upside, if the revenues grow too much, windfall taxes may lower the returns to a similar rate of a CFD.

GF members have had the comfort of being outside of the windfall tax rules, imagine if GF was caught and there was no allowance, that 27p rebate would have been reduced to around 14p and we are now around 6p and maybe next year 5p based on the current year ahead prices. Would 14p in exceptional conditions be enough to throw away the one off option of a CFD.

[nowty]

I'm baffled- got an e mail about the vote being indicative because they didn't follow the notice rules which i had already heard about. Thats all ok but then they say-

Although this is only an indicative vote, we anticipate the board would require a similar threshold of at least 75% of all votes cast choosing "Yes" (please note - this is 75% of votes cast, not 75% of all Coop members) to include the Coop's share of the project in the CfD application.


But CDF applications have to be in by the 19th April and they can't have a general meeting before then. So are they not having a general meeting but I thought one was required to change the rules.

Oh lordy, what a dogs dinner.

And I have not been accessing my emails.

I’ll be abstaining on the basis roughly half of the projects will be applying for a CFD to cover the financing part.

[Yuff]

Do they deliberately make it this complicated so people have to do a shed load of research to understand what is happening, unless you have a nasty, of course, to explain everything
It reminds me of Law, everything is so complicated that you have to pay 100s of £ an hour to get someone to represent you and even then these days it’s a 50:50 as you get an incompetent deputy who has no idea what they are doing because the ministry of justice decided it was discriminatory not to let people apply to be a judge just because they didn’t have a law qualification……
Not sure they’d allow someone to apply to be a neurosurgeon without a medical qualification…….

[resybaby]

Not invested in these at all, but been reading the thread and trying to follow it.
Boy oh boy has this all turned into a complicated mess, Ibuprofen by the boxful needed.

In my experience of life, if something previously fairly well understood is being intentionally changed to something that is impossible to clearly understand, or have explained in simple terms, then its best kept away from imv.

Good luck deciding guys, one im glad not to be part of currently

[John_S]

On my Ripple dashboard, I see that the estimated yield on my investment in Kirk Hill is 3.2p or 5.5% for the first year and 4.3p or 7.3% average. this return includes the 5% return of capital.

I also note that Greencoat UK wind currently trades with a 7.2% dividend yield and you can always sell your shares to get the capital back (subject to share price changes).

On this basis, I won't be investing in any more Ripple projects even if they waived the 120% limit which I am up against.

Perhaps I should sell my GF stake as I presume that I would get back 90% of what I put in (100% less two years 5% capital repayment). Presumably, we can sell now as it has been generating for two years.

I also think that if they change to CFDs making projects an investment rather than an energy price hedge, there is little reason to keep the 120% cap.

[Tinbum]

I'm baffled- got an e mail about the vote being indicative because they didn't follow the notice rules which i had already heard about. Thats all ok but then they say-

Although this is only an indicative vote, we anticipate the board would require a similar threshold of at least 75% of all votes cast choosing "Yes" (please note - this is 75% of votes cast, not 75% of all Coop members) to include the Coop's share of the project in the CfD application.


But CDF applications have to be in by the 19th April and they can't have a general meeting before then. So are they not having a general meeting but I thought one was required to change the rules.

Oh lordy, what a dogs dinner.

And I have not been accessing my emails.

I’ll be abstaining on the basis roughly half of the projects will be applying for a CFD to cover the financing part.

Not sure if they will put the application in if the membership vote in 75% in favour in the indicative vote and then have a general meeting and vote at a later date to confirm it. If it doesn't go the same way then they pull out.

I see some of you have voted but I haven't seen a voting e mail.

[Yuff]

I’ve had an email today about voting…..