Voltwise: Extend German grid fee exemption for large batteries to 2034

pv magazine: Battery storage systems will be exempt from grid charges until 2029. How do you assess the current situation and the discussion surrounding it?

Thorsten Klöpper: Battery storage systems are still exempt from grid fees until 2029, or rather, grid fees for storage systems will be paused until then. The Federal Network Agency is now considering reintroducing these grid fees and actively contributing battery storage systems to grid expansion costs. In principle, we believe in a broad range of stakeholders’ participation in grid expansion costs, based on the polluter pays principle, makes sense, provided it is well thought out.

In your statement on the AgNES procedure, you propose a three-stage model for the introduction of grid charges for battery storage, starting in 2029. What exactly should this look like?

In our view, strictly setting grid fees for storage without knowing why and for what purpose is a hasty decision that would severely restrict both the expansion of battery storage systems and market- and system-friendly behavior. Our three-stage model is, therefore, not an attempt to avoid contributing to the costs of grid expansion but rather a practical way to ensure that battery storage systems also co-finance grid expansion. Specifically, the model, therefore, envisages an extension of the pause in grid fees until the next regulatory period, in 2034. By then, grid friendliness must be defined and the system designed. This requires pilot projects and active cooperation between grid operators and storage operators. The interaction between grid, system, and market serviceability must also be closely examined. Only then can storage systems be integrated into the fee system in a way that is fair.

What concerns do you have if grid fees are reintroduced directly, from 2029?

Currently, around 2 GW of large-scale battery storage systems are connected to the German power grid. Expansion is, therefore, still in its early stages. At the same time, there is talk of a “battery tsunami,” meaning grid connection requests in the high three-digit gigawatt range. There is currently a significant discrepancy: Yes, too many storage systems want to be connected to the grid and yes, too few are actually connected. This dynamic helps neither grid operators, storage operators, nor end customers. In general, however, the investment momentum for battery storage systems is positive. Battery storage systems are the only subsidy-free flexibility option that contributes to stabilizing electricity prices, provides system services, and generates municipal added value. This must be maintained. However, grid fees threaten to trigger knock-on effects on storage expansion that many are unaware of and could, thereby, reduce Germany’s attractiveness as an investment location.

Do you have an example from another country where this may have already happened?

A look at the Netherlands, in particular, highlights the risks. There, the ramp-up of BESS has stalled due to unfavorable grid fee regulations – a mistake that was only recently reversed. This scenario must be urgently avoided in Germany, which is why a well-thought-out fee system is essential at this time.

Do you, therefore, consider it justified to extend the exemption from network charges for storage until 2034?

The extension until 2034 creates a reliable time horizon within which the industry, together with the Federal Network Agency and the grid operators, can develop a sustainable and differentiated fee model. At the same time, this extension is consistent with the political goal of promoting flexibility options in the electricity system and not imposing additional burdens. This was already enshrined in the coalition [government] agreement and must now be implemented.

Could grid friendliness be an argument for this?

It is currently difficult to estimate the extent to which storage systems will contribute to or alleviate the current challenges facing the electricity grid. Grid serviceability has increasingly become a buzzword in the energy transition without the term being defined and the necessary measurement concepts and control options being specified. Nevertheless, the coalition agreement and the discussion paper refer to grid serviceability. As the battery storage industry, we want to define this term, operationalize it, and test it in active grid operation in order to subsequently determine how battery storage systems benefit or harm the grid. Only then can grid fees for battery storage be set sensibly. Hasty decisions regarding the grid fee system threaten to slow down the momentum in Germany. Grid fees are to be introduced after December 31, 2028 – ideally with discount options that reflect grid friendliness. As of July 2025, there is neither a definition of grid friendliness nor criteria for measuring it. So we’re currently starting from scratch and want to develop a model over the next two-and-a-half years that could fundamentally change the financing of storage. This process must be well-considered and not rushed into. To ensure this, we are calling for an extension of the fee exemption until the next regulatory period.

You’ve initiated a co-signatory effort for other companies to sign your statement. Who has already signed and why? 

This statement was deliberately designed as a joint declaration by a broad corporate alliance across the battery storage value chain. A unified voice is particularly important when it comes to groundbreaking issues such as grid charges. It is important to represent not only the interests of battery storage developers and operators but also those of marketers and manufacturers based in Germany. We are therefore pleased to have represented the entire value chain. The companies that have already signed include Voltwise Power Holdings Limited, ABO Energy Fabrik GmbH & Co. KGaA, MN Projects GmbH, Powerwerker GmbH, FAVEOS SE, Aquila Capital, Elements Green Limited, BW ESS, Tion Renewables GmbH, Enspired GmbH, 1st Flow Energy Solutions GmbH, Mirai Power GmbH, Suena GmbH, Econergy Renewables Ltd, Terralayr AG, Stabl Energy GmbH, BBD Big Battery Deutschland GmbH, sdp energie GmBh, Voltfang GmbH, and the Leag Group. This represents a broad cross-section of the German and European storage industry.

What do you think network charges for storage should look like, given that there is a lot of discussion about how they should be structured?

In the long term, grid fees for battery storage systems should be based on a balanced interplay of market serviceability, grid serviceability, and system serviceability. A clear yet flexible system is needed that is both predictable and practical. Flat-rate, energy-price-based models do not do justice to the multifunctional role of storage systems and could even create counterproductive incentives. It is crucial that storage system operators have planning security and that incentives for grid-friendly operation are created not through restrictions but through targeted remuneration. However, this first requires a reliable data basis, common standards, and a regulatory framework that reconciles market, grid-related, and systemic requirements. Battery storage systems must be allowed to continue to operate in a market- and system-friendly manner even after the introduction of fees. Operating modes should not be prescribed but encouraged through incentives.

The expiring exemption from grid fees is putting pressure on many project developers to connect their battery storage systems to the grid as quickly as possible. On the other hand, we hear that many grid operators are currently issuing few or no connection commitments for battery storage systems, and for large projects, they are only doing so in 10 to 15 years. What are your experiences, and what are you hearing from the market about the current situation?

We are currently experiencing a truly contradictory situation: On the one hand, there is an urgent need to integrate flexibility options into the power grid while, on the other, obtaining a grid connection for battery storage is extremely difficult. Unfortunately, long waiting times have become the norm for many battery storage projects. The reasons for this are varied and cannot be attributed exclusively to the grid operators.

Can you name the reasons?

For example, there are currently several hundred gigawatts of so-called “phantom” projects – projects that have submitted applications for grid connection but have no realistic likelihood of being implemented. This flood of requests poses enormous challenges for grid operators as they are barely able to process the applications efficiently. Such projects must be consistently filtered out of the application process in order to bring actually feasible projects onto the grid quickly. At the same time, grid operators are also required to consistently drive forward the digitalization of the grid infrastructure and create the conditions for integrating battery storage systems into the grid flexibly and efficiently. In this context, we clearly advocate for greater cooperation: Grid operators and project developers must work together more intensively and in a solution-oriented manner in the mutual interest. The following applies: New battery storage systems should not, overall, cause additional bottlenecks or place further strain on grid expansion but, at the same time, their economic viability must be guaranteed in the long term.

From pv magazine Deutschland.