Today, the Security of Supply Forum once again organised an energy policy background discussion - which was held online with a large number of participants. The topic of the event was "Whoever uses the grids should also bear the costs" - against the background that the distribution system operators are calling for grid tariffs that are fair in terms of causation. A fair distribution of costs should ensure that the infrastructure is expanded quickly.
Johannes Zimmerberger, Managing Director of Linz Netz GmbH, used a clear and easy-to-understand presentation to explain the "weak points" that the forthcoming Electricity Industry Act (ElWG) is intended to eliminate. Motto: "Whoever uses the grids should also share in the costs - that should at least be the basic principle."

Sharing the costs

The costs of operating and expanding the grids are covered by grid fees, which are paid by electricity customers in addition to the commodity electricity and the relevant taxes. As the electricity grids are natural monopolies, they are subject to a regulatory regime - consequently, it is not the grid operators themselves who decide on the level of tariffs, but these are set by E-Control from the perspective of cost-orientation. In addition, the grids are subject to the so-called revenue cap principle: if the revenue from the tariffs in one year is higher than forecast, for example because a larger number of new consumers have been connected to the grid, the grid operators are not allowed to dispose of these additional funds; instead, they must be used to reduce tariffs in the following year and vice versa (keyword: regulatory account).

"The greater the number of parties involved who bear a fair share of the costs, the smaller the share for the individual consumers or feeders. Every exception for one group automatically means higher costs for everyone else," says Zimmerberger, for whom it is therefore clear that (small) feeders should also pay grid provision fees - "that's what fairness demands."

Efficient grid expansion

In order to meet the requirements arising from the switch to wind and solar power, the grids will have to be massively expanded over the next few years. According to calculations by the Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT), around 24 billion euros will have to be invested in the grids by 2030 and around 44 billion euros by 2040 in order not to jeopardise security of supply.

"We must utilise all technical possibilities to make grid operation flexible. This is the only way to avoid the risk of oversized grids," says Zimmerberger. Operators must be given the opportunity to manage peak loads in both directions. "We welcome the fact that the ElWG finally regulates peak capping when feeding into the grid," says Zimmerberger, "without such a regulation, the grids would have to provide for overcapacities that are only needed for a short time on a few days a year." On the consumer side, it should be possible to control high-power usage - such as charging electric vehicles - in such a way that peak loads are avoided.

Tariff incentives - such as corresponding power prices - are intended to promote grid-friendly behaviour on the part of consumers. This means that consumers can save money if they minimise the maximum power they use. On the producer side, storage systems can help to avoid overloading the grids.

New ways of financing

Zimmerberger also sees a lack of fairness in the regulation of so-called construction cost subsidies. These are one-off payments that partially cover the costs incurred by the installation of new connections. PV systems are largely exempt from this. However, if many small PV systems go into operation in a supply area, it may well be necessary to reinforce the grid. Zimmerberger provides an example calculation: "If an additional transformer station has to be built for ten new PV systems, this will incur costs of around 150,000 euros, which are not offset by any construction cost subsidies. If there were ten households instead, subsidies totalling 30,000 euros could be offset." Zimmerberger would therefore like to see these subsidies reorganised in line with the costs incurred. Finally, the establishment of a state infrastructure fund could also provide more favourable financing options and greater security for grid expansion.
The following key takeaways - beyond the content of the presentation - emerged from the subsequent round of questions:

• Domestic PV systems do not usually reduce the peak power drawn by the operator as this occurs at times of day (in the evening) when the sun is no longer shining;
• Energy communities - which are a billing construct - can only be regarded as useful to the grid if they actively work to avoid power peaks or surplus electricity. For example, active demand management can prevent run-of-river power plants from having to run unused water over the weirs when solar radiation is high;
• The establishment of a state infrastructure fund, which is intended to provide more favourable financing options and greater security for grid expansion, makes sense if this fund is not to be financed by the parent companies of the grid operators, which usually indirectly ensure the financing of grid expansion through payments from them. Otherwise, the principle of "left pocket, right pocket" would arise and unnecessary administrative costs would be generated

The Security of Supply Forum is the joint platform of five distribution system operators: Wiener Netze, Netz Niederösterreich, Netz Burgenland, Linz Netz and Netz Oberösterreich.