Part ownership of a Ripple Wind Turbine, fancy it?

[nowty]

That raises the idea of dropping the 7MWh unjustified closer to the end of month and if people want to weigh in heavy for financial generation beyond the home requirements, why not?

The 120% of home usage rule is Ripple aligning themselves with the tax-free limit for microgeneration, but they haven't established with HMRC whether it's relevant or not. As there definitely appears to be a taxable benefit to the co-op bill credit, the home usage thing seems a complete red herring.

There has been some mixed messaging about this.

I spoke to ripple at length a few months after the launch of WT1, they wanted some feedback as the fund raising was not going to well and I volunteered. They told me the biggest obstacle to get started was getting agreement from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) who was concerned about tax avoidance as some people were putting very large amounts of money into these sorts of schemes. And that seemed to be the main reason on the 120% limit.

Later ripple publicly spoke several times regarding WT1 and the 120% was mentioned as attempting to align with the tax free limit of microgeneration. It sounded plausible and the legislation was updated to include the same coverage for SEG to align with FIT. But to extend it to this type of investment was a stretch because it specifically said at your own premises (or very close to it). So to extend the location nationally could open up all sorts of unintended issues. Also as many of us have solar panels, you would have to add up the total generation from your solar PV and your ripple wind turbine which might push some of us over the 120% limit, therefore turn our own domestic Solar PV systems into commercial installations and therefore ALL our FITs or SEG could become taxable. So I personally believed this was unlikely to be agreed by HMRC as being unworkable.

At the WT2 webinar the tax free status attempt was not even mentioned, and replaced with some vague statement about they did not want it to become an investment vehicle. Quite amusing as the CoOp will be a shareholder in a Special Investment Vehicle (SPV).

Today there has been another facebook message which seems to align with what they told me at the start that it was an FCA requirement or some similar regulatory requirement.

[John_S]

That raises the idea of dropping the 7MWh unjustified closer to the end of month and if people want to weigh in heavy for financial generation beyond the home requirements, why not?

The 120% of home usage rule is Ripple aligning themselves with the tax-free limit for microgeneration, but they haven't established with HMRC whether it's relevant or not. As there definitely appears to be a taxable benefit to the co-op bill credit, the home usage thing seems a complete red herring.

I am not convinced that this is the reason. I consider it is more driven by the FCA. Ripple are using a Co-op to bypass the rules for raising equity from the public for a company. FCA consider that Co-op members should be retail whatever that means.
Had Ripple not complied with the FCA’s views, they would not have got away with such a flimsy offer document or have adopted such a non sustainable business model. As it stands, it does not have a sponsor, even name it’s solicitors giving legal advice, been so vague about taxation, not even fully identified the name of the co-investor and not mention an investor of last resort or underwriter.

On the other hand, had Ripple not gone the route it did, the costs would be prohibitive and we would not have been able to participate in WT1 and WT2. Not withstanding my views above, some of which I had not formulated when I invested, I am happy to have invested.

It is likely that the 28 March investor will own a direct share in WT2 and the Co-op interest will be 21% (51%-30%) unless a lot of further small investors come aboard.

John

[TCA]

I am not convinced that this is the reason. I consider it is more driven by the FCA............

It is likely that the 28 March investor will own a direct share in WT2 and the Co-op interest will be 21% (51%-30%) unless a lot of further small investors come aboard.

John

One of the stated objects in the co-op rules is:

"providing Members with access to the value of the electricity generated by such project(s) in order to supply their homes/properties with clean, stable-priced
electricity via licensed electricity suppliers"

I agree that the Ripple concept is too differentiated from microgeneration for HMRC to simply apply the same treatment, so as said before that's likely a red herring. So the 120% thing could just be Ripple's attempt (within the customer agreement) to show some vague adherence to the co-op rules about supplying homes. The co-op rules which have to be approved by the FCA.

The Facebook post makes sense. As John said, the co-op status affords them certain exemptions, one being not requiring approval for the information supplied on their website or in the share offer document as a financial promotion or prospectus. Ergo investors not being covered by the FSCS. So having co-op status seems to be the main driver.

Re an increased co-investor's stake - if it's the SPV which owns WT2 and the co-investor (Ripple always talk in the singular) ends up owning more than 50% of the SPV, then as far as I can see that renders the co-op powerless. Or am I misunderstanding something?

[nowty]

Re an increased co-investor's stake - if it's the SPV which owns WT2 and the co-investor (Ripple always talk in the singular) ends up owning more than 50% of the SPV, then as far as I can see that renders the co-op powerless. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Unfortunately that may be the case as the CoOp would be a minority shareholder, unlike WT1. But even being a sleeping partner, would that be a big deal ?, I cannot imagine the main shareholder doing anything to reduce the value of the asset.

In some of my quoted wind farm investments the company does not always have a majority stake in some of the windfarms, and the investment still seems to work ok.

The only thing I can think of is the ongoing management fee to ripple and whether the CoOp ends up paying two management fees. Although it might end up backfiring more against ripple rather than the CoOp.

Personally I'd still be happy to stay with it.

[TCA]

Unfortunately that may be the case as the CoOp would be a minority shareholder, unlike WT1. But even being a sleeping partner, would that be a big deal ?, I cannot imagine the main shareholder doing anything to reduce the value of the asset.

In some of my quoted wind farm investments the company does not always have a majority stake in some of the windfarms, and the investment still seems to work ok.

The only thing I can think of is the ongoing management fee to ripple and whether the CoOp ends up paying two management fees. Although it might end up backfiring more against ripple rather than the CoOp.

Not sure what you mean by two management fees, but yes, that was the area I was thinking about. Not only being able to influence the level of fees ongoing but the ability to appoint someone other than Ripple as managing agent if that was the will of the co-op.

You'd expect the co-investor to act as the co-op would but of course without knowing the nature of the relationship between Ripple and the co-investor, that's not a given.

[AE-NMidlands]

Wales weather: Heavy rain, 60mph wind yellow warning
A yellow weather warning for wind has been issued for parts of south and west Wales on Saturday.

Heavy rain and gusts of 60 mph are possible in more exposed coastal areas, the Met Office said.

Did someone say they shut down abovw 55mph? Hopefuully it won't be quite as bad as forecast...

[nowty]

Wales weather: Heavy rain, 60mph wind yellow warning
A yellow weather warning for wind has been issued for parts of south and west Wales on Saturday.

Heavy rain and gusts of 60 mph are possible in more exposed coastal areas, the Met Office said.

Did someone say they shut down abovw 55mph? Hopefuully it won't be quite as bad as forecast...

From what I have read, a gust needs to be nearer 80mph to shut one down. The 55mph shutdown is only if its sustained for a period of time.

Forecast looks like a nice sustained 30 to 40 mph wind in exposed places, couldn't be better, bring it on.


https://www.nationalgrideso.com/documen ... %20between
The precise conditions required for a turbine to trip on HWSS vary between manufacturers, but are typically wind speeds of 25 m/s (56 mph) sustained for a preset period or for gusts of 35 m/s (79 mph).

[Joeboy]

52%!!

[Tinbum]

Damm! You got in first. I thought I was the only one up at 1.43am watching for it to move.

Actually I'm trying to adjust a 400 day clock.

[Joeboy]

Damm! You got in first. I thought I was the only one up at 1.43am watching for it to move.

Actually I'm trying to adjust a 400 day clock.

Never heard of one of those? I've got a two week cold, up so i'm not snoring and SWMBO can get some deep sleep.

Where's Nowty?