Grid operators would go out of business with lots of net metering

Posted Feb 27, 2025 21:48 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
In reply to: Grid operators would go out of business with lots of net metering by marekm
Parent article: Building an open-source battery

The Netherlands does have net metering on paper though it was scheduled to be removed. Then the new government voted against it after the elections. As a result, energy companies have added surcharge ("terugleverkosten") that basically charges people with solar panels extra based on the the size of their installation.

Why? Because net metering means that energy companies have buy expensive electricity in winter to match the cheap electricity they bought off you in the summer. (You get to net meter, but your energy company doesn't.) As a result, energy companies make a loss when customers have solar panels, which then has to be compensated by a higher per kWh price for everyone.

So the whole system is essentially a massive subsidy from people without solar panels to people with solar panels. One in three Dutch houses has solar panels, and since it's generally the more wealthy people who own their own houses that install solar panels, poor people are basically subsidising rich people. It also removes any kind of incentive to install batteries or manage your electricity usage.

Of course, the new government said they kept net-metering so that poor people could also benefit, except people renting or living in social housing or apartments can by construction never benefit from this scheme (facepalm).

So yeah, "net metering is good for customers" if you're rich enough to live someone where it's possible.

(Near as I can tell there's no EU directive explicitly forbidding net-metering, but the Renewable Energy Directive II does say things like that batteries should be promoted and costs of the energy transition fairly shared, and net-metering goes against both of those.)

Grid operators would go out of business with lots of net metering

Posted Feb 27, 2025 23:01 UTC (Thu) by marekm (subscriber, #174682) [Link]

Utility companies here charge a sum of energy cost and transmission cost, even when transmission really costs them nothing if my neighbor without solar panels uses the excess energy from my solar panels (tranmission loss is negligible because of short distance). I don't think they lose money, maybe they just make a bit less money but it's not a loss. Often the same monopolies sell not just electricity but also gasoline, diesel, natural gas - and can still can afford expensive TV ads, sponsor sports events etc. (being monopolies they shouldn't need any advertising at all, everyone already knows them very well anyway).

Most people with their own houses are paying for them with high interest rate mortgages, so they are not really that rich (myself included), the interest rates here are among the highest in Europe, banks are making a lot of money "because they can" much like the utilities. It's often around 10% per year interest rate when you borrow from the bank, and next to nothing when the bank borrows from you (you keep your money in the bank, except short time promotions like "new money for the first month").

So it's the energy companies and banks who are very rich here (and they likely also sponsor some politicians to keep the status quo), while solar panels are quite popular among average-rich people (someone really rich doesn't need them, really rich people could simply pay their high energy bills and enjoy a cleaner looking roof).

Adding extra fees for those producing more solar power is downright evil, especially if based on total size of solar panels (their theoretical max power if always perfectly aligned to the sun) and not just peak power sent to the grid. So I'd be actually punished for adding more east/west panels (or vertical bifacial ones that could double as a fence) that make more energy during the early/late hours when there is more demand.

Grid operators would go out of business with lots of net metering

Posted Feb 27, 2025 23:27 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

As someone with three solar arrays in the UK, I do reasonably well at present ...

My home has effective "net metering", although that's because I've got an old-fashioned mechanical meter that runs backwards if I'm generating more than I'm using, and that's an "improper combination" - you're supposed to get a smart meter if you have an array, and they don't run backwards.

So if you get an array in the UK, what is (or was) supposed to happen is you got a "generation payment". There's a meter on your solar output and you get paid a decent sum for your generation (to pay back the capital cost of you installing the arrays). Because smart meters couldn't go (or measure) backwards, they then assumed that you kept 50% of your generation and fed the other 50% into the grid, for which you get paid a nominal sum. You can now get "feed in" meters so you get paid for the actual electric you feed into the grid.

Over the years the generation payment has dropped as panels have got cheaper, and you can't get it for new installs any more I don't think. The feed-in payments are pants, so basically you now pretty much want to use most of the power you generate.to get your money back. But the panels are cheap, so it's roughly worth it. I'm getting good money on all three arrays, but that's because they're old and the generation payments will expire in the not too distant future. So the only benefit I will get once that happens is a bit of feed-in money, and a bit of free electric. It is what it is, but it still seems economic for people to install panels ...

Cheers,
Wol