Acm.nl uses cookies to analyze how the website is used, and to improve the user experience. Read more about cookies

ACM: feed-in costs for solar power are not unreasonable, though contracts are difficult to compare

Summary

  • The feed-in costs that energy suppliers charge households with solar panels are not unreasonable.
  • Since suppliers calculate feed-in costs in different ways, it is often not clear to customers what they are paying for.
  • That is why ACM is in favor of an unequivocal method for passing on the costs for solar power.

The feed-in costs that energy suppliers charge households with solar panels are not unreasonable in comparison with the costs that suppliers incur. Furthermore, the feed-in costs will, if market conditions remain unchanged, not rise any further. That is one of the conclusions of a study conducted by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). ACM does see that suppliers pass on feed-in costs to their customers in many different ways. As a result, it is often not clear to customers what they are paying for, and it is difficult to compare contracts with each other. That is why ACM advocates that energy suppliers charge feed-in costs on the basis of the amount of power that has been fed back into the grid.

Feed-in costs are not unreasonable

Since 2023, more and more energy suppliers charge costs for the power that households with solar panels feed back into the grid. ACM conducted a study into feed-in costs already twice before. These studies revealed that suppliers do actually incur costs for feed-in solar power, and that feed-in costs are not unreasonable. As ACM saw that feed-in costs continued to rise, ACM last year decided to conduct another study. As part of this follow-up study, ACM requested information from 16 energy suppliers. ACM also conducted pre-announced dawn raids at 5 suppliers (Essent, Eneco, Greenchoice, Frank Energie, and Zonneplan). In these pre-announced dawn raids, ACM checked the submitted information, and further examined the ways in which suppliers calculate their feed-in costs.

The study shows that the costs that different suppliers incur for feed-in power do not differ that much from each other. Energy suppliers are able to substantiate properly what costs they incur. The way in which they pass on these costs to their consumers, too, can be properly explained. Customers with solar panels thus do not end up paying for other costs, such as the imbalance costs of solar parks or costs related to grid congestion. In addition, the study reveals that an increasingly large part of the costs for solar power is passed on by suppliers to customers with solar panels only. As a result, the feed-in costs for households with solar panels has increased over the past few years. At this point, the costs are only paid for by customers with solar panels, and the amount of the costs is at a stable level. ACM expects that, if market conditions remain unchanged, these costs will therefore not rise any further.

Consumers have something to choose from

The passing-on of feed-in costs as well as the end of the net metering scheme in 2027 lead to a decrease in the revenues of solar panels. To maximize the benefits of solar panels, it is recommended to consume the power of sonar panels as much as possible when that power is generated. Dynamic energy contracts are also becoming more and more interesting for households with solar panels. These suppliers incur fewer costs for households with solar panels, which is why customers of dynamic suppliers hardly pay any feed-in costs (or even none at all). Dynamic contracts are only interesting for people that are able to bear the risk of greatly fluctuating tariffs.

This study as well as the monthly Monitor on the consumer energy market reveal that households with solar panels really have something to choose from. Suppliers pass on the costs for solar power in many different ways. It is not prohibited for suppliers to charge costs in different ways, but it often does make it complicated for customers. Another consequence is that it becomes difficult to compare different types of contracts with each other. That is why ACM advocates that suppliers charge the feed-in costs in an unequivocal manner. In the model contract that comes into effect on 1 January 2026 (model contracts are standards contracts that all energy suppliers must offer), ACM mandates energy suppliers to always calculate the feed-in costs per kilowatt hour of feed-in power. ACM considers this to be the proper method for other contracts too.

See also

Back to top