Small solar installations: the state's brakes

The press kit mentioned a "modification to the open access scheme for installations under 100 kWp, strongly encouraging self-consumption in the 9-100 kWp segment." Following this, a text on collective self-consumption aimed at "maximizing self-consumption" was announced.

In principle, Enerplan is fully aligned with these broad guidelines. The Minister of Energy announced that these changes would be formalized through documents submitted to the High Council for Energy (CSE) shortly. So be it.

However, Enerplan was quite surprised to discover that two documents had been sent to the High Council for Energy on the evening of Thursday, April 2nd. They were surprised because the document reforming the open access scheme for small installations had not been subject to any prior discussion. They were also surprised because this document abruptly and completely overhauls public support, reducing the subsidy for surplus energy from these installations by more than a factor of four: the subsidy would be set at €0,011 per kWh when market prices are positive, compared to the current €0,04 for the 0-9 kWp segment and €0,47 for the 9-100 kWp segment. For the former, this represents a reduction by a factor of 12,6 compared to March 2025! Furthermore, the document provides for the elimination of the self-consumption bonus and a zero tariff during periods of negative prices. These abrupt changes, following those already initiated a year ago, are a blow to all the installers who cover the territory.

Enerplan points out that the producers who implement these small power plants are individuals, local authorities, and SMEs who are not part of the electricity market. This measure therefore ultimately eliminates any remuneration for these small producers and will further destabilize thousands of installers already weakened by the 2025 reforms and the political dithering surrounding the reduced VAT rate, the Multiannual Energy Programme (PPE), and the threats of a moratorium.

The reform of collective self-consumption, the subject of the second text sent to the CSE, while pursuing an objective shared by the sector, retroactively undermines all operations by removing the possibility of freely allocating production to self-consumers, thereby favoring the largest consumers at the expense of the operating methods set by the self-consumers themselves.

How can we hope to maintain confidence and undertake new operations if we call into question the very model of operations?

This text, as drafted, contradicts the objective of promoting local energy loops and collective self-consumption. The discussions held beforehand with industry organizations have clearly not been heeded, and the proposals of those most directly affected—the self-consumers—have been completely ignored.

For Daniel Bour, President of Enerplan: “We had already alerted the government to the difficult situation faced by many professionals in the solar sector due to a lack of visibility. The announcement of the Multiannual Energy Program (PPE) and its publication by the Prime Minister had calmed concerns. Last Thursday's meeting to announce the stimulus measures was promising, but in reality, the measures announced by the Minister of Energy for photovoltaic solar power left us perplexed because of the uncertainty surrounding future calls for tenders, with only one session announced instead of the three planned, and regarding the future of small-scale photovoltaic systems. On the same day, without any consultation, two draft decrees were sent to the High Council for Energy. The first, concerning small installations under 100 kWp, provides for the complete elimination of state aid, and the second calls into question the collective self-consumption model. Enerplan has always been in favor of reforming the S21 standard, for installations under 100 kWp, particularly towards self-consumption, and has made proposals in this regard.” But the proposal to virtually eliminate the buyback of surplus energy at a price of 1,1 cents per kWh, excluding negative prices, instead of 4 cents/kWh, compared to a solar market price of 4,2 cents/kWh, is incomprehensible. This sends a very negative signal that risks bringing the sector to a standstill, placing risks on businesses and employment in rural areas. In this context, the method used here, without any consultation, is contrary to the spirit of openness and dialogue we have had with the Prime Minister. I call for the withdrawal of these two items from the agenda of the Works Council meeting of April 16, and I ask the Minister of Energy to urgently convene representatives of the industry to find an acceptable and effective way forward for the reform.

Illustrative image of the article via Depositphotos.com.