What was the deal with that network again?
Thanks to the offset rule, solar panel owners can offset the energy they supply to the grid during sunny times with the energy they draw from the grid when the sun is not shining. The scheme has been a huge success in recent years: nowhere in the world are there as many solar panels per inhabitant as in the Netherlands.
But the price of panels has fallen so much that the scheme is no longer necessary. In addition, it is becoming increasingly expensive for panel owners and the tax authorities. However, successive governments have never succeeded in abolishing this popular scheme. The previous government’s proposal to phase out the networks also failed in the Senate earlier this year. The BBB and PVV factions were among those who voted against it.
However, a few months later the new government (with BBB and PVV) once again put an end to clearing operations. This time not by phasing out the scheme, but by stopping it completely in one fell swoop on 1 January 2027.
As part of the Budget Day documents, Minister Hermans sent the draft law regulating this abolition to the House of Representatives on Tuesday. The proposal includes a rather critical article from the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. Roughly translated, the ACM claims that the suggestion that electricity supply should never cost money is incorrect. And that the law makes the situation very opaque for panel owners. The Consumers’ Association and the Owners’ Association published alarming press releases about “dark clouds” gathering for panel owners.
What exactly is the JCA’s criticism of the proposal to abolish netting?
The ACM notes that there is uncertainty around the concept of “reasonable return compensation”. The feed-in payment is the amount that panel owners already receive if they supply more energy to the grid than they consume. The part of the supplied electricity that they do not compensate is charged to a feed-in tariff.
About the author
Tjerk Gualthérie van Weezel is economics editor of from Volkskrant. he writes on energy and the impact of the energy transition on daily life.
If compensation is stopped, panel owners will now receive compensation for all electricity they do not use themselves. According to the law, this feed-in compensation can never go negative. Last June, the House of Representatives also voted in favour of an amendment to the NSC, which stipulates that the feed-in tariff can never go negative.
But according to the ACM, this contradicts the recent development that almost all energy companies charge “feed-in costs”. This is a separate fee, which effectively circumvents the compensation rule. Depending on the amount of electricity fed back into the grid, these companies charge additional feed-in costs.
Last month it emerged that feed-in costs for households with many panels are sometimes so high that they already have to pay net for the electricity they feed into the grid. “If the intention of the legislator is that households with solar panels never have to pay for the electricity they generate, the draft law should be clarified on this point,” advises the ACM.
What does Hermans do with that comment?
She is implicitly responding to this by not changing the law. Her spokesperson stated in a response that the law “does not concern the costs of return”.
Broadly translated, the minister has no problem with panel owners having to pay for the electricity they supply to the grid through elements other than the final feed-in payment.
Is that bad?
Opinions differ as to whether it is objectionable that compensation for solar energy can be clearly negative. There are reasons to believe that the price of electricity on the wholesale market is often negative during sunny hours.
By passing those costs on to panel owners, they have an incentive to act. Whether it’s turning on the washing machine more often at peak times or putting the car on the charger. Or (partially) switching off the panels. The latter seems like a shame, but it’s an effective way to avoid overloading the grid.
On the other hand, a negative price is unacceptable for many consumers and undermines support for solar panels. Of course, this is also the idea behind the NSC amendment. During a previous parliamentary debate on phasing out the grids, party leader Pieter Omtzigt called it “extremely undesirable to receive support if one, as the owner of a solar panel, has to pay to have the energy returned to it.” This is now also evident in practice. Due to the uncertainty about compensation and feed-in costs, the market for solar panels has collapsed.
Because of the “social benefits of self-generated energy,” the ACM also says it “understands” that feed-in compensation cannot be negative. But what the regulator considers worse than negative prices is the lack of clarity the government leaves behind. “We are already receiving many questions about the payback costs. That is impossible to follow and is uncertain.”
While the government apparently does not see the fact that energy supplies cost money as a problem, the ACM believes that this should also be made clear and comparable for consumers at a glance. “Then you at least know where you stand.”