Tate & Lyle requested judicial review of their allocation of 1.0 Renewables Obligations Certificates (ROC) for the use of co-firing of biomass with combined heat power (CHP) arguing that they should have received 1.5 ROC. Prior to suit, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change had discovered an error in its prediction of costs of co-firing of biomass with CHP, but after assessment, determined that the original allocation was appropriate. Tate & Lyle alleged that the Secretary’s methodology in making this determination was unfair and discriminated against the technology. The High Court of Justice found that the government’s allocation was reasonable.
On appeal, Tate & Lyle alleged that the Secretary should have only updated the cost information when recalculating its allocation. The Court of Appeals found that it was reasonable for the Secretary to incorporate updated data for other aspects of the calculation and dismissed the application.
Challenge allocation of renewable energy subsidy claiming unfair and discriminatory