Ripple CFD vote.....

[Tinbum]

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

[AE-NMidlands]

There are obviously plusses and minuses of both options...

What do people who are in both think about going (voting) to use the two options, one on each? I have twice as much in KirkHill as in Derril Water, but wouldn't really mind which one had the CFD if we did try to coordinate our votes.
A

[openspaceman]

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.

I don't understand much of this; I was too late for the first two wind farms, not interested in a solar farm and registered for the next wind project but only for the principal of generating some of my power remotely via a Co-Op.

I am otherwise not interested in just an investment, I prefer to spend it on the family and keep the IHT at bay.

[SporranMcDonald]

Thanks to Nowty for the additional information & insight.

Finally, I will vote for a CFD @ Kirk Hill. KH represents one-third of my ( meagre ) Ripple capacity.

This will balance the risk/reward considerations - as Graig Fatha ( forever non-CFD ) is the other two-thirds.

Roll-up, roll-up : place your bets . . . . .
But the renewable capacity is built, running ( nearly for KH ) and 100% in the bag !!

[Yuff]

I’ll second nowty for all the helpful info

[AE-NMidlands]

Finally, I will vote for a CFD @ Kirk Hill. KH represents one-third of my ( meagre ) Ripple capacity.
This will balance the risk/reward considerations - as Graig Fatha ( forever non-CFD ) is the other two-thirds.
Roll-up, roll-up : place your bets . . . . .
But the renewable capacity is built, running ( nearly for KH ) and 100% in the bag !!

Thanks for making a choice, unless there are more of our people doing the opposite I will go the same way so as not to vote against you. So for me (at this stage):
CFD for KH, Stay as we are for DW then.

(But there's over a week to go yet, so we'll see if we get a majority either on way here.)
A