Türkiye reduces network costs for around 800 unlicensed solar power plants – SPE

TurkeyThe Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) is reducing the grid fee for unlicensed first-generation solar power plants commissioned before 2019 after the expiry of their ten-year feed-in tariff.

According to a document in the country’s official gazette, the levy will be applied at TRY0.656 ($0.014)/kWh, down from the previous TRY2.081/kWh, representing a 68% reduction.

Unlicensed solar power plants in Türkiye are primarily designed for self-consumption up to a limit of 5 MW, with the potential to return excess electricity to the grid via net metering. They make up the bulk of Türkiye’s operational solar fleet, with data from national transmission system operator TEİAS highlighting that unlicensed solar accounted for more than 22 GW of the nearly 25 GW of solar added in Türkiye late last year, including more than 4.1 GW installed last year alone.

In January, Bahadır Sercan Gümüş, energy analyst at Ember, said this pv magazine he expects that unlicensed solar energy will remain the main driving force behind the solar energy market in Türkiye this year.

An update from state news agency Anadolu Agency (AA) said the temporary arrangement covers around 800 unlicensed solar facilities with a total capacity ranging from 500 MW to 550 MW.

AA’s analysis shows that the reduction in grid tariffs aims to reduce the economic burden on former investors in unlicensed solar power plants and prevent such solar power plants from ceasing production due to cost pressures.

Hakan Erkan, secretary general of the Solar Energy Manufacturers and Industry Association (GENSED), has supported the move and advised that power plants have been forced to suspend production to avoid losses when the market price fell below the distribution fee.

“Due to the fact that the inverters in some power plants with old technology were not suitable for remote switching on and off, it became necessary to have physical personnel on site,” Erkan said. “This situation placed a serious burden on the investor, who faced both loss of energy production and additional personnel costs.”

Popular content