The Solar Trade Association (STA), Renewable UK, and the Renewable Energy Association (REA) all said the £205 million per year CfD budget was weighted too heavily towards immature and expensive generation technologies.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) has set out £155 million per year for less established technologies (pot two), such as offshore wind, wave, and tidal stream generation, with £55 million per year set aside for established technologies (pot one), including onshore wind and large scale solar.
Nothing has been set aside for biomass conversions (pot three) beyond the early CfD funding.
The REA said the technology in pots one and three can “immediately plug the looming capacity crunch” with low carbon and value for more generation.
REA chief executive Nina Skorupska said: “The limited funding for several key technologies will send shockwaves through the industry.”
She added: “The best way to square this circle is by properly funding the cheaper technologies and introducing a minima for all technologies.”
Renewable UK supported this view, and stated there was “insufficient funding” for the pot one technologies.
Gordon Edge, director of policy at Renewable UK, said: “An overly restrictive budget for the established group of technologies will mean a lower level of delivery of the cheapest technologies, risking consumers paying more than they should have to.”
The STA claimed the draft budget was an “absurd decision that will ultimately hit energy bill payers across Britain”.
It stated that even it all of the pot one money went towards large scale solar, would still result in a “considerable reduction on the current market”.
Leonie Greene, head of external affairs at the STA, said introducing a minimum amount of funds for solar would create “a level playing field”.
She added that by doing this solar “stands a realistic chance of being cheaper than gas by the end of the decade”.