With their “solar bonus” concept, the Green Party aims to provide 600 hours of free electricity for all households during the summer months. This is intended to address the increasing overproduction of electricity by solar panels, which currently often goes unused due to a lack of storage or grid capacity. At the same time, the initiators hope for broader public acceptance of the energy transition. However, numerous unresolved problems lie behind the proposal – particularly regarding financing, billing, and technical implementation. The solar bonus sounds attractive, but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be purely symbolic politics. (tagesspiegel: 16.11.25)
Solar Bonus as a Response to Inefficient Grid Structures
During the midday hours of sunny days, a surplus of electricity is generated, which currently can only be partially utilized. While wind and solar power plants produce reliably, many grid operators throttle the feed-in. The consequence: producers receive compensation even though no electricity is flowing. The solar bonus aims to remedy this situation by providing consumers with free electricity – ideally precisely when photovoltaic systems are operating at peak capacity. This should allow consumption to better align with generation. Grid fees will be temporarily waived for this purpose.
But this is precisely where the problem begins: It remains completely unclear how the free electricity can be technically defined and correctly billed. Millions of households do not use smart meters, which could accurately record flexible tariffs or time windows. Without this infrastructure, implementing the solar bonus will not only be inefficient but also prone to errors.
Free electricity at the state’s expense – but who really benefits?
Simon Müller, the originator of the concept, estimates the cost of the solar bonus at around two billion euros for approximately 400 hours of free energy. This sum is to be covered by the state budget – a claim that seems hardly realistic given the scarcity of public funds. Network operators and electricity providers would face revenue losses but would simultaneously have to maintain the grid and supply electricity. The risk thus shifts to taxpayers and end consumers without providing a sustainable solution for the overloaded electricity grid.
Furthermore, the solar bonus only reaches a limited portion of the general population. Households without smart meters or controllable large consumers such as heat pumps cannot flexibly manage their consumption. Particularly problematic: Many tenants who don’t have access to their own solar panels hardly benefit. This creates a divide between technically equipped users and the rest of the population.
Booster tariff as a supplement – with limited effect
As a supplement, Müller proposes a booster tariff for owners of photovoltaic systems with battery storage. The goal is to feed stored electricity into the grid in the evenings, thereby reducing demand during expensive peak hours. The idea: more supply, lower prices. However, only a small percentage of households have suitable storage technology. For the majority of the population, this approach remains ineffective.
New technical challenges also arise: The booster tariff requires precise coordination with the electricity grid to avoid exacerbating peak loads. The idea seems ambitious, but without massive investments in storage and grid modernization, it will have little impact.
The energy transition needs structural reforms, not empty promises.
Deputy party leader Sven Giegold defends the concept and criticizes the fact that “currently, in the summer, people are paying for the fact that renewables aren’t operating.” The solar bonus is supposed to resolve this contradiction. But instead of fundamentally reforming the electricity system, the proposal merely shifts existing problems – particularly regarding grid capacity, tariff structures, and technical infrastructure. The energy transition needs transparent market mechanisms, smart grids, and flexible tariffs – not short-term subsidies without a solid foundation.
Ultimately, the solar bonus remains a political signal without a practical basis. Important questions about billing, social justice, and the stability of the supply remain unanswered. Anyone who is serious about the energy transition must address the root causes of inefficiency. On closer inspection, the solar bonus turns out to be popular electioneering aimed at a lay audience – technically unsustainable, economically risky, and politically ill-conceived.