We very much welcome this work but as far as we understand it there are some issues that will not be able to addressed within the analysis but have a significant impact on prices, these include:
Policy - if a technology has significant and stable government policy support then costs are likely to be lower as this support reduces risk and increases confidence. Policy support might be through economic measures such as feed-in tariffs or other measures such as planning. The converse is also true of course, if a government is ambivilent or if a subsequent government is likely to change policy then risks increases and confidence falls.
Benefits - insulation for example can have signficant savings in health costs or indeed improved educational attainment through children living in warmer homes. Also it may be a significant job creator. If these are not captured then there is a real danger that the only the gross costs are shown and not the net costs.
Future fuel prices - technology costs are only one part of the equation. How are other elements treated, such as fuel costs. Forecasts can be made for e.g. gas prices, but political instability can have a significant impact on fossil fuel prices (as we have seen with the Arab spring) and potentially on energy security. (A range of fuel costs are assumed - see XVI.B BALANCING IMPORTS COSTS. Interested in views as to whether this range is wide enough - Tom Counsell)
Technical innovation - the falls in price of solar over recent times were not easily predicted, can you be confident that you ranges properly take into account possible outcomes of the vast research efforts in new technologies?
Great that DECC are doing this but significant risks, in our view, that the outputs can and will be misused
Mike Childs Friends of the Earth