do you need the answer from the GSE?

One of the most interesting chapters of the bonuses amplified by Law no. 77/2020, the one that established the so-called
Superbonus 110%, concerns the installation of
photovoltaic solar panels for the production of electricity and its storage.

Photovoltaic: towed intervention

On closer inspection, referring to the need to reduce CO emissions2, one of the activities that carries out a considerable weight and with immediate positive implications in the finances of citizens: the contribution to the reduction of costs related to electricity. Not without problems and problems, of course. The first is to consider these working as towed and therefore in need of other collateral jobs in order to be facilitated. The second is linked to the diversity of economic treatment (the so-called ceilings) which are differentiated according to whether the main works configure a Extraordinary maintenance (Article 3, paragraph 1, letter b) of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001) or one building renovation,
new construction e urban restructuring (respectively art. 3, paragraph 1, letters d), e) and f) of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001) and this, in light of the changes on the building definitions introduced with the simplification law, if on the one hand it has expanded the range of interventions that can access a more substantial bonus (the types of work that can be considered as restructuring have increased) on the other hand, these regulatory innovations are struggling to be incorporated in the various portals (that of ENEA for example) so we are faced with series
difficulty in the inclusion of practices according to the new provisions.

Photovoltaic and landscape constraints

Of course, works of this kind, which often constitute
modifications of existing roofs, in certain areas subject to landscape constraint they may find resistance from the protection bodies. A TAR (Lombardy) had to intervene to reprimand a Superintendency that had denied the authorization for the installation, explaining that the constraints imposed must in any case accompany the evolution, even technological, of society and guarantee the satisfaction of needs which, in this case , yes, they have a private sphere but correspond to an indelible public interest (a principle that is always valid, not only for photovoltaics).

It is clear that this position taken by the Administrative Court cannot guarantee a “free all”, being responsibility also of the designers the reconciliation of different interests and these, even in the insertion of a photovoltaic system, must seek those solutions that best balance the respect of the overall values ​​involved. It must be said that some regional regulations have implemented a series of procedural simplifications and some operational indications that go in this direction.

Superbonus 110% e CILAS

And, in a complex regulatory framework like the Italian one, it happens that the difficulties inherent in the law are sometimes added to others, perhaps promoted by third parties for purposes that are not always understandable. This was the case of CILAS, opposed by many exegetes of urban planning legality affibbiandogli underground vulnus and completely unlikely future disasters (see the recent confirmation of the MiSE).

A recent note from ENEA states that partial towed works can be included in SALs. What new? Since the construction works accounting system has existed, the SALs are compiled by recording the works carried out, complete or not. Now even in the superbonus it can be done however, according to some, there is an underlying that has to do with the photovoltaic systems.

Photovoltaic between Enea and GSE

Since Law 77 states that in order to be entitled to deductions relating to towed works, these must have been carried out together (not before and not after) with the towing ones and the photovoltaic system is towed, it is necessary to establish when the photovoltaic system can be considered finished processing. It would seem, according to some, that this is only when the GSE responds, formally accepting it, to the request to connect the system to the network. Until that date, the driving work could not be entirely completed and neither could it be driven (at least in the opinion of these commentators). You will say, and what is the problem? Only one: the GSE, for the desired response, requires a long time (two / three months, destined to lengthen) and, as mentioned, only after it could the driving and towed works be completed, the related accounts be drawn up, the files uploaded to the ENEA portal to take advantage of the discount on the invoice / credit transfer.

Going backwards, considering two weeks for the latest accounting procedures, a previous one for the material conclusion of the works and two / three months of waiting for the Manager’s response (activity completely unrelated to the works and responsibilities of clients and companies), the deadline real for the execution and (almost) completion of the works would shorten by about four months, then no more than 30 June or 31 December 2022; in reality, in the law that established the superbonus, reference is made exclusively to the execution of the works and not – in the case of photovoltaics – to an elusive obligation to acquire responses; so much so that thousands of cases have already been concluded throughout Italy. Now, one wonders why some subjects, thanks to the complexity of the procedures, try to find catches even when they are not there (perhaps).

The post do you need the answer from the GSE? appeared first on Newsy Today.

Source link

Leave a Comment