By: Jože Biščak
In mid‑December, members of parliament passed a new law promoting the use of renewable energy sources (RES) with 45 votes in favour and 21 against. “The law will enable faster, more transparent, and fairer development of renewable energy infrastructure in Slovenia,” the Ministry of the Environment, Climate, and Energy (MOPE) wrote. What they did not mention, of course, is that electricity bills will be significantly higher in the spring due to the socialisation of costs.
“If I understand correctly, this government will charge all of us who do not have solar power plants an additional 8 to 10 euros per month in electricity contributions so that we cover the costs of net metering for solar power plant owners. Power companies and solar plant owners will be happy, and everyone else will be ‘screwed’,” economist Matej Lahovnik wrote on X.
What is net metering?
Climate alarmists swear by highly unreliable renewable energy sources. These include solar power plants, which are supposed to provide their owners with self‑sufficiency in electricity. In this context, the term “net metering” appears. It refers to the accounting of electricity produced and consumed by micro solar power plants. When a solar power plant produces more electricity than the owner consumes (typically in summer), the surplus electricity is fed into the grid. When the solar power plant does not produce enough energy (during winter), the owner receives the needed electricity from the grid. The difference is settled once a year under the net‑metering system. The key point is that owners of solar power plants feed their surplus electricity into the grid and later use it without additional costs.
The system was introduced in Slovenia a decade ago as an incentive for renewable energy sources. This led to rapid growth in the number of self‑supply power plants. By the end of 2025, installed solar capacity increased from 500 MW (in 2021) to 1,600 MW, and the number of households that invested in solar panels rose to around 60,000. However, the net‑metering system brings numerous problems, especially the socialisation of costs, which burdens electricity suppliers and end consumers.
If solar power plants do not produce enough electricity, suppliers must buy it on the exchange; prices are high in winter (due to higher consumption) and low in summer (due to surpluses from solar plants). This creates balancing costs, which fall on suppliers. Until 2021, these costs were manageable because price differences were small, but the energy crisis (2022–2023) widened the gap, leading to multi‑million‑euro losses: two years ago losses amounted to €21 million, last year around €40 million, and estimates suggest they could reach €60 million this year.
Socialisation of losses
Logically, the balancing costs (losses) should be covered by the owners of solar power plants (around €1,000 per year per owner), or the net‑metering system should be abolished. But the Slovenian government, socialist as it is, decided on socialisation: all electricity consumers will cover the losses through the RES and CHP contribution (combined heat and power). This happened after some suppliers decided to sue the state. Among them is Suncontract, which has €3.3 million in losses and has also decided to start terminating contracts with electricity consumers, since net metering is causing losses so large that they cannot cover them as a supplier. The law therefore provides compensation for suppliers, which could raise the average electricity price for all consumers by 10 percent or more. In other words: the government has protected people who can afford solar power plants, while their “free” electricity from solar panels will be paid for by everyone else.
“Solar energy is so incredibly cheap and free that we will all be paying 10 percent more for electricity. Except those with sunflowers. So that the little ones can then calculate how fantastically the sun pays off. A practical exercise: if solar power makes up 7 percent of electricity in Slovenia and increases our bills by 10 percent, how much more expensive is it than the rest of the electricity?” wrote Žiga Turk, publicist and former minister, cynically on X. The Energy Agency has warned that the socialisation could constitute unlawful state aid, as it does not take into account actual costs on energy futures markets.
World Bank: Slovenia is not suitable for renewable energy sources
Slovenia is completely unsuitable for generating solar and wind energy. This is the conclusion of a World Bank study that examined the suitability of 210 countries for the effective use of renewable energy sources (RES). Slovenia ended up in the bottom seventh – ranked 180th.
Why? Because the number of sunshine hours (seasonality) fluctuates, because winter days are very short (few hours of sunlight), and because the country has rather unfavourable terrain (Slovenia is too mountainous). All of this means that the conditions for large‑scale solar energy production in Slovenia are worse – very poor – compared to other countries in the world. The same applies to wind. For a well‑functioning wind‑power system, you need steady winds. Slovenia does not have them. Slovenian experts have confirmed this: “Compared to Western Europe, Slovenia is not very windy, as it lies in the lee of the Alps with respect to the prevailing winds over Europe. Hills and mountain ranges create a barrier to the winds on one hand, and on the other they deflect the airflow, which then adapts to the terrain.”
In light of these results, the website Science Files offered an interesting comparison. The author noted that Europe’s stubborn insistence on wind and solar energy (most of Europe is unsuitable for wind and solar power plants) is similar to deciding to grow rice in this part of the world, rice requires very specific conditions. It is a crop for warm climates. It thrives best at sustained temperatures between 21 and 37 degrees Celsius, as it grows slowly. Rice does not tolerate night temperatures below 15 degrees Celsius, and the grain requires a great deal of water. In short, a rice harvest in Slovenia would be pointless. Just as pointless, the author argues, is the insistence on RES. According to the World Bank study, the most suitable country for renewable energy is Namibia, followed by Chile and the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.