Renewables Map

I’m going to ramble a bit to start with

On June 18th 2014 DECC put out a tender to provide them with what they referred to as REPD – Renewable Energy Projects Database or Renewables Map as they referred to it on their website.  Now a slight aside., where you have most likely just come from was the first resource of its type to be called “Renewables map”. That was back in 2007 before I even bought the domain name (in 2008) .  DECC didn’t copy my reference until about 2011.

Between about 2009 and 2011 they included my renewables map in their website as if it was theirs.

Then in 2010 – you would have thought they might drop me a line -there was tender to do what I was already doing. I wasn’t aware of it so couldn’t bid, it wasn’t until 2011 that DECC finally referenced their own website as their major resource (not referenced my website as that resource) .

You can see this on the wonderful internet archive:

So, 2014 and they ask for bids to provide the next 4 years worth of  Renewables Map.  Did they drop me a line?  Of course not. It was only when somebody from another Government Department – that is heavily involved in energy and technology dropped me a line and said that I should apply as I clearly had a far better resource than the one that DECC was currently using and they wanted to see mine develop further. I also had a similar email of support and pressure to apply from just about the biggest energy company in the UK. By this time it was 5 days before the tender closed.

Anyway, I tried. I passed my Application to a number of energy professionals to review and they all thought it was excellent.

So, I provide a resource that DECC thought good enough to reference as THE definitive dataset. You will know that there aren’t any other similar independent datasets – otherwise you wouldn’t be using Renewables Map. And you aren’t using DECCs version, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this.

Anyway, have a read of the refusal letter.  If anybody can understand how it applies to me – the developer of  renewables map from nothing – please please share it with me.  Please also feel free to share any views with Alan and Jayne to be passed on.

This is the emailed refusal Mallett Lot 2 – 8 August.pdf

I have also added my initial email response, this was emailed to various supporters in non DECC Govt departments .  Next step is my MP as this stinks!  But please tell me if I’m missing something?

This is the email I sent as my first response:

Hi David, Jim, Geoff
Have  a look at the letter from DECC.
I am at a loss to understand their reasoning, you might have a better idea. I would be very grateful for any thoughts.
You should be aware that throughout this appraisal, not once did they even bother to visit the actual website – the one the world uses rather than the DECC equivalent (you know that I monitor all visitors, and I was looking out for them).

The comment:  “However there was little evidence of how that would be applied to this work area.”  Note my comment about not even looking at renewables map  As to “The bid also failed to demonstrate a good understanding of renewable energy and policy issues and of DECC’s requirement. “I suppose they didn’t even read the proposal. The fact that for some years they – DECC – referred to my renewables map as if it was their own resource, then state that the person who developed it  ” failed to demonstrate a good understanding of renewable energy ” is astounding.What worries me now is that many of the proposals I have put through in the report will simply be handed over to their chosen candidate, that candidate will in turn mine my site for all the data that is routinely missing from their current supplier who I have no doubt is shortlisted!I do wonder, if, when I reference renewables map they actually think it is a reference to their own resource – they used to publicise it as theirs – hence not bothering to look at it? I can see no other explanation. Realistically the bid was actually working in practice live online. And they have rejected it in favour of a sheaf of paper presumably from someone who is more practiced in what to write rather than what to do.It is indisputable that the current incumbent’s website is poorer than  when looking at the requirements of the tender. It is also indisputable that I am the only other equivalent web resource. Their refusal makes no sense, and their reasoning seems to me to be contradictory. .Anyway, I will obviously be taking this further.

What a start to the weekend.



I would love to share the proposal document , but at the moment I don’t want to share the ideas, many innovative (rare in Govt) , with DECC’s winning friends. Though I suppose they will get them anyway, put out a tender and get ideas to feed them to your chosen buddies!      Maybe I am being cynical? But then I have every right to be!

I expect I will detect significant data mining from my site in the weeks to come.

An analogy. Suppose  Alec Issigonis invents The Mini and develops it himself. Austin motors put out a tender for “The Mini” Sir Alec presents his working product.  Austin Motors turns him down as maybe he doesn’t really understand their requirement. Yes a stupid analogy but fits?


5 Responses

  1. I’m sorry to hear how badly you have been treated. Perhaps you should send an email to Margaret Hodge at the Public Accounts Committee if you think there is something rotten in the state of DECC.

  2. Hello, just found your web site with a lot of info. I may use it to find sites to work on!!! once you get on a site they all look the same!

    I’ve commissioned well over 200 MW of solar and 100MW of wind in last ten years as an X DNO engineer now a consulting engineer and would like to talk to you.

  3. Note my comment above about Data Mining. Eunomia, the company that got the contract, from having visited renewables map once prior to getting the contract suddenly became the biggest user! Now stopped after I pointed this out to DECC (copied to my MP) and mentioned the word plagiarism.

  4. Just read through this and you seem to be a classic case of being bloody good at what you do (the map) but not as good at jumping through the teeny tiny hoops that show DECC, what is in their eyes, a government proposal. The big companies are usually exactly the opposite. Crap at the job, but have a crack team of proposal writers, how have been initiated into the black art of which box to tick in proposals. I should know, I have fallen foul of this system myself and seen my work royally ripped off by people being paid by government, where I was putting it out there into public domain. I even had one consultant come up to me and say “thanks, you helped me make $1 million”.

    I really, really wish I could offer some advice but I can’t, as I walked out and joined a consultancy, in part to learn how to write the damn bids so that it wouldn’t happen again. Now out on my own again am putting forward a tender to get paid for what I do for free.

    Don’t stop pushing this!

    All the best from the Lake District.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: