Owners of solar panels no longer disadvantaged: netting must now be done on an annual basis by law | living

Energy Minister Rob Jetten plans to amend the law in such a way that netting on an annual basis will become mandatory, he writes in answers to parliamentary questions from CDA. That party sounded the alarm at the ministry after consumer organizations such as Independer and Vereniging Eigen Huis entered into force an article on NU.nl talked about mistakes that energy suppliers made in their energy bill and the way in which they settle the return of solar panels.

Due to the rapidly rising energy prices, more and more suppliers switched to a variable electricity and gas tariff per month. In some cases, netting was also done on a monthly basis. Netting means that households can offset the power generated by the solar panels against the amount of power consumed in the home. The energy supplier pays a relatively low producer rate for the electricity generated. The government supplements this up to the consumer rate.

However, when panel owners receive a settlement every month, it is often to their disadvantage. The vast majority of households consume more electricity in the winter than in the summer, while most of the energy is generated in the summer. If the electricity generated and fed back is not offset against the higher consumption in winter, this results in a higher energy bill and they cannot benefit in winter from the electricity they have generated in sunny months. People with a heat pump in particular are therefore considerably more expensive.

Jetten says that both his ministry and the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) have received ‘such signals’ about the issue. Netting had to be done on an annual basis, but some suppliers failed to do so. There was a lot of uncertainty about the matter. With the intended amendment to the Electricity Act, this should be a thing of the past.

Vereniging Eigen Huis is pleased with Jetten’s decision. However, the VEH also calls on energy suppliers to compensate for the financial disadvantage that panel owners have suffered as a result. “These energy suppliers opted for a different interpretation than the statutory netting scheme. In doing so, they deliberately took a risk. However, the negative consequences of this should not be borne by solar panel owners.”