FITs appeal blocked
- Energy ,
- Construction ,
- Renewable ,
The Supreme Court has refused to allow the government to continue the legal case defending its attempt to change the feed-in tariff (FIT) rates retrospectively
In January, the Court of Appeal confirmed a High Court ruling that DECC had acted illegally in proposing to lower future subsidy levels for solar photovoltaic panels installed under the FIT scheme.
The energy department had recommended lowering tariffs for installations erected after 12 December 2011 by up to 55% in a consultation that did not end until later that month.
After the High Court decision, DECC pushed back the date from which installations would be affected (until 3 March), but appealed to the higher court, arguing that urgent changes to the FIT were needed to prevent the scheme from exceeding its budget.
On 23 March, DECC’s legal battle was ended by the Supreme Court. It rejected the department’s application to continue its appeal saying that it did not raise “an arguable point of law of general public importance”.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a new 'Green Claims Code' to ensure businesses are not misleading consumers about their environmental credentials.
In Elliott-Smith v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the claimant applied for judicial review of the legality of the defendants’ joint decision to create the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) as a substitute for UK participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
In R. (on the application of Hudson) v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC, the appellant appealed against a decision to uphold the local authority’s grant of planning permission for the construction of a holiday village at the Legoland Windsor Resort.
In R (on the application of National Farmers Union) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the claimant applied for judicial review of the Secretary's direction to Natural England concerning badger culling.