The end of the 'solar panel paradise' is in sight as the nets are scrapped

It was one of the most surprising climate clauses in the coalition agreement: a netting scheme for solar panel owners was phased out. Not gradually over several years, but in one fell swoop, in 2027. The Senate voted against this proposal a few months ago. The BBB and PVV, together with GroenLinks-PvdA, then obtained the majority.

Three months later, the formed parties voted in favor of abolition. This is a choice that caused surprise among the opposition during a debate on energy on Thursday. Did “the finance spokesman win over the energy spokesman” during the coalition negotiations, asked Susanne Krüger, GroenLinks-PvdA MP. Because canceling the netting arrangement would generate at least 600 million euros annually for the state treasury, according to the financial section of the agreement.

The formed parties were looking for a way to prevent the budget deficit from worsening, while at the same time finding enough money to implement costly plans, such as eliminating the deduction.

The discussion showed that there was a financial reason to abolish the compensation system. It was a “very painful cut,” admitted BBB MP Henk Vermeer.

The manner in which the netting system was abolished – in one fell swoop, which led to questions from the CU and the CDA – also had to do with finances. Vermeer said in response that canceling this policy all at once would generate more money than spreading it over several years. “We are working to improve purchasing power across the board, but we have had to take unpopular measures to achieve budget standards,” Vermeer said.

Boost in solar energy

Thanks to this scheme, solar panel owners can offset the excess generated electricity they supply to the grid at the end of the year against electricity purchased from the energy company. Netting has provided a huge boost in solar energy.

Abolishing the netting system has been a political talking point for years. Cabinet after cabinet tried it. In 2013, the then Minister of Economic Affairs Henk Kamp (VVD) had already decided to do so, but to no avail. Critics believe the government will not be trustworthy if it withdraws support. They also believe it is important that solar panels are now affordable to poor families.

At the same time, experts have long agreed that abolishing the netting system is necessary. Sometimes, too much power is generated using solar panels which results in overloading the power grid. The netting system also costs energy companies a lot of money. Customers often supply the company with excess solar energy during times when prices are low. Electricity that energy companies “return” to customers later may be more expensive. For example, when electricity comes from a gas power plant. The additional costs incurred by companies are settled with all their clients. Also with customers without solar panels.

People without solar panels therefore pay disproportionately for the excess load on the power grid that is partly due to solar panel owners. By eliminating the compensation system, part of the financial benefit for people using solar panels would disappear, although they would still be able to recoup their investment through cheap energy costs.

Robert Harmsen, an energy policy researcher at Utrecht University, sums it up this way: “The end of solar panel heaven is in sight with the netting down. Even without netting, it would still be profitable overall, but a little less than it was with this arrangement.”

Eliminating net metering forces customers with solar panels to think about how to use generated solar energy more intelligently, Harmsen says. “For example, by purchasing a home battery to store the energy generated, which is already happening in neighboring countries where there is no compensation scheme. Or by charging cars and running dishwashers when the sun shines.”

fine

In Thursday's House debate, another part of the discussion on the compensation plan focused on reporting Telegraph. Before the discussion, the newspaper wrote that the formed parties want to impose a ban on the “fine” supply of electricity from solar panels. Energy companies, such as Vandebron and Eneco, have recently begun issuing such fines to solar panel owners to compensate for the higher costs they incur when too much electricity enters the grid at the same time. For example, the costs of feeding solar energy into the grid are not charged to all customers, but only to solar panel owners.

NSC MP Wytske Postma said otherwise Telegraph That “the world is upside down” is such that people with solar panels have to pay for their electricity to come back on. In reality Its modification revolved around a similar, but less radical, measure: the additional compensation that customers with a dynamic contract receive if they produce more than they consume. For customers with a dynamic contract, feed-in prices, which change hourly, are sometimes negative when there is a large supply of electricity. This can cost a relatively large amount of money in the summer for customers with multiple solar panels. The next coalition wants to prevent this by agreeing to ban negative prices.