MP wants to ban energy firms from charging people to add surplus solar power to the grid

Adding surplus solar power to the electric grid should not cost homes more money. This was stated in a proposition submitted by NSC MP Wytske Postma, who claims she is supported by the other coalition parties, the PVV, VVD, and BBB.

Under the so-called netting scheme, households can offset the electricity they generate against their consumption. If people create more power than they use, the energy supplier should pay a "reasonable compensation" for that.

When a substantial amount of electricity is generated but not much is used, like on a sunny summer day, the energy companies' buying price could theoretically become negative. In that case, the owner of the solar panels, not the energy supplier, would conceivably have to pay for the extra electricity.

Postma said this notion makes households more hesitant to use their solar panels. Her proposal states that energy suppliers' "reasonable compensation" for the surplus green power can never be negative. Because the netting scheme costs energy suppliers money, many companies charge homes that return energy to the grid, even if they give back more than they use.

It is still unclear what the consequences of the NSC proposal would be regarding the costs. Postma said Parliament needs to ensure that households do not need to pay for the power that they generate.

"I don't want the owners of solar panels to be stressed because the sun is shining."

While the NSC parliamentarian raised concerns, the VVD questioned the accuracy of how the coalition’s plans and Postma’s proposal have been interpreted. VVD MP Silvio Erkens said in a debate on the issue on Thursday that energy suppliers will still be able to charge households for energy use, including those who feed electricity back it to the grid.

“I think a few things are getting confused in the press,” Erkens replied. “There is the feed-in tax and the feed-in fee.” The tax is what Postma is trying to abolish, the fee is not allowed to be negative according to the proposal made on Thursday.

Essentially, a great deal of confusion is now swirling around this aspect of Dutch energy policy, when considering the coalition’s loose outline agreement, Postma’s proposal, and the response by Erkens. Energie Nederland, the trade association for energy companies, said in response to Postma that it is a shame that the country’s politics are so chaotic.

"We understand that people cannot follow it anymore; it is a yo-yo policy. Clarity is necessary in this case," said Energie Nederland chair Cora van Nieuwenhuizen. Van Nieuwenhuizen previously served as the infrastructure minister on behalf of the VVD in Prime Minister Mark Rutte's third Cabinet.

A proposal to gradually abolish the netting scheme was not supported in the Senate in February, but the coalition agreement states that the four political parties will be gone by 2027.

The regulator earlier concluded that energy suppliers are allowed to charge the owners of solar panels if the prices are not unreasonable. "And it is fairer," Energie Nederland states.

"It was a couple of hundred euros a year that was initially being charged to all customers, so even homes that didn't have panels were paying the fee."

Power suppliers Vattenfall, Eneco, Greenchoice, and Vandebron have raised the prices for solar panel owners. Sometimes, there are additional surplus power costs; other times, the fixed costs are higher.