Dutch Energy-Performance Fees Face a Solar Settlement Reset

A highly efficient rental home can keep producing solar electricity while becoming more expensive for its tenant. The reason lies in how that electricity is settled and how the landlord is paid for providing the home’s energy performance. The Dutch cabinet’s October 16 proposal addresses the relationship between those two charges as net metering ends on January 1, 2027.

Two Payments Around One Home

The energy-performance fee, known as EPV, is a payment a landlord may charge for a very efficient, gas-free home that generates renewable energy. Such properties generally have many solar panels. The government explains that tenants in EPV homes do not pay an additional amount for those panels through their rent or service charges.

The fee is therefore a separate part of the housing arrangement. Its affordability cannot be judged solely by looking at whether panels generate electricity. What the tenant receives from that generation depends on the electricity rules as well as the building. If those rules change, a fee calibrated to the earlier arrangement may no longer leave the household in the same financial position.

Why Annual Netting Matters

Until the end of 2026, the net-metering arrangement allows households to offset electricity exported to the grid against electricity consumed over the year. That annual settlement can connect surplus solar output at one time with electricity bought at another. It gives exported electricity a different role from a simple sale of surplus power.

From January 2027, exported power can no longer be offset in that way, although suppliers must still compensate customers for it. The government’s guidance sets a minimum compensation level through 2030 of half the electricity supply tariff before tax. Suppliers may also charge for the costs they incur in handling electricity fed back to the grid, under regulatory supervision.

Electricity generated and consumed directly in the home follows a different route: it does not first need to be exported and bought back. That distinction explains why panel output alone cannot predict the bill. The timing of household demand, the amount exported and the applicable settlement terms all affect how generation translates into a financial benefit. The proposal does not claim that identical panel systems will produce identical household savings.

Recalibrating the Fee

The cabinet estimates that tenants paying the maximum EPV would otherwise face an additional €42 to €75 a month compared with a situation in which generation could be netted and no feed-in charges applied. It says the proposed recalibration would reduce that increase to around €8 to €13 a month.

These are estimates for the stated maximum-fee comparison, not a promised reduction in every tenant’s total bill. They describe the effect of changing the fee alongside the electricity settlement change. Keeping that comparison explicit avoids turning a modeled mitigation of higher costs into a claim that all households will pay less than they do now.

The proposal has been sent to the Council of State for advice, with revised rates intended to begin on January 1, 2027. Cabinet agreement to submit it is a step in the process; it is not evidence that the revised tariffs already apply.

The Housing Provider’s Side

Lower EPV rates also reduce housing associations’ income and investment capacity, the cabinet acknowledges. The policy therefore changes how the financial consequences are shared between tenants and providers, even though it does not alter the panels’ physical output. For housing decisions, the lesson is to assess the electricity settlement and the fee together: an efficient home’s affordability depends on the payment arrangement surrounding its equipment.