Abolishing the Net metering scheme (Afschaffen salderingsregeling)

[c0mplex1]

In anticipation of the abolition of the net metering scheme in 2027, I am considering replacing my ECU-R 2160x with an ECU-R 2162x.

On this site I read that with an ECU-R 2162x you can not only switch off the panels, but also regulate the power per panel.
I want to try to achieve the "0-on-the-meter" on sunny days, because I do not yet know what the feed-in compensation from my energy supplier (EnergyZero) will be and whether there will be a feed-in penalty.

Now my question is: is the APsystems ECU Reader integration prepared for this and if not can it be implemented and what are the names of the entities that you can control to achieve this.

[HAEdwin]

I'm currently looking into that, yesterday I found out that you can also call the Zero export function on an ECU-R-Pro: #11

I am now testing if it actually works on my ECU-R-Pro (the ECU-R-Pro returns "Set Switch successfully") but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The additional Zero Energy switch is already built into the integration for ECU-C and hopefully ECU-R-Pro owners.

But of course it feels a bit strange, ECU-C software (and references to the ECU-C) on an ECU-R-Pro so I don't know how long APsystems will keep this going.

A while ago I discovered that you could also just execute Unix/Linux commands and I built in a Software Reboot function. With the new firmware ECU_R_PRO_2.1.23 they quickly undone that. So sometimes it feels like a cat and mouse game.

[HAEdwin]

It looks like the Zero Energy switch doesn't work on the ECU-R-Pro unless there is some way to input the return into the ECU-R-Pro.

[ddaddy]

I never had much luck getting the zero export to work on my ECU-C!
I can't remember the details now as it was last year, but I remember struggling to set an export limit.

So perhaps @c0mplex1 can confirm they have it working from the ECU interface and how quick it reacts.

[HAEdwin]

With the ECU-R-Pro you can indeed limit the power per panel. Depending on how fast this is happening, it will be a challenge to mimic the Zero Energy function by limiting the power. The disadvantage of switching inverters off is that positive self-consumption is no longer compensated by the solar panels.

[c0mplex1]

From what I understand, only the ECU-C / ECU-3 has the Zero Export Function, not the ECU-R Pro a.k.a. ECU-R 2162x. Or am I wrong?

But wait. Don't rush things.
I'm thinking about upgrading my ECU-R 2160x to an ECU-R 2162x (Pro?) before the net metering scheme ends in 2027.
I want to create an automation that ensures that the solar panels do not produce more energy than the household consumes.
Currently, I use an automation that switches off the main power to the Solar panels when the electricity price becomes negative.

[ddaddy]

What is the net metering scheme? What country are you in?

[c0mplex1]

The netting scheme (in Dutch: Salderingsregeling) was created by the government to make purchasing solar panels attractive for consumers.
For every kWh that you return to the grid, you get the same price back as you paid for it.
In 2027, this scheme will end and you will receive almost nothing for a kWh that you return to the grid.
Some energy suppliers will give you a fine if you return electricity to the grid.

[ddaddy]

Wow that’s bonkers that they don’t actually want you to export free electricity to them!
I hope it doesn’t come to France.

[HAEdwin]

This is because the Netherlands has a high density of solar panels. Partly due to offshore wind farms and onshore solar parks, there is a surplus of electricity in good weather and there are insufficient batteries or other ways to store or spend that surplus. Nuclear energy is not so crazy in that respect - in France they do it better.

The Netherlands ranks first in Europe and second worldwide, after Australia, in terms of the number of solar panels per capita.

[HAEdwin]

For the ECU-R-Pro currently there seem to bee two options:

1. Limit output per panel when feeding back into the grid. (slow 5 minute response)
2. Switch off one or more inverter(s) when feeding back into the grid, depending on the need. (fast response if I remember correctly)

For both methods it is necessary to create (smart) automations in HA YAML (with thresholds) to make it more dynamic because the ECU-R-Pro has no input to measure usage afaik.

Of course you can also switch on consumers that are relatively stable in consumption such as an air conditioner, or temporarily: e-car, e-bike, washing machine, dishwasher.

I'm thinking out loud for a solution:
I could add option 1 but it is not that fast. So suppose you feed -350 Watts back into the grid, I use that as an input number for the integration and I distribute it evenly over the panels (inverters) to let them reduce power.
But usually it fluctuates so much that you would want to give it a margin. Even then you run the risk of temporarily feeding back energy.

With option 2 you kind of have a natural threshold because it switched off more panels at once. It's faster and easier.

I tend to leave it at option 2 but any ideas or thoughts are welcome.

[HAEdwin]

Sorry, I forgot...
There are no new visual entities it's an action you can use from within automations. The integration picks it up and handles the setting on the ECU. You could try the Developer Tools:

When you turn debug mode on and set the state, in your case an error will appear in the log.

[c0mplex1]

@HAEdwin I get this error:
2025-03-17 11:42:51.742 ERROR (MainThread) [custom_components.apsystems_ecu_reader.gui_helpers] Error setting max power for inverter 4080000xxxxx: Cannot connect to host 10.10.20.xxx:80 ssl:default [Connect call failed ('10.10.20.xxx', 80)]

[c0mplex1]

@HAEdwin Now that it seems to work, I have a question: The solar panels were placed and installed by a certified company, after which they registered the system with APsystem.

Do you know if I can replace the ECU-R myself with the Pro version, using the ECU App, or does the company that installed the panels have to do this?

[c0mplex1]

In the Developer Tool it works, but in an automation shouldn't this start with an action command?

action: ?????
data:
  value: <between 20 and 500>
target:
  entity_id: max_panel_power.<inverter UID>

[HAEdwin]

Ok, the error message could be clearer like "not ECU-R 2160 series compatible" or something. You're able to migrate yourself on the EMA site. You could still notify them of replacing the ECU-R but I don't think it will make any difference to them. I would think they actively are monitoring but I'm not sure, I'm a independent DIY installer :)
How it would work in an automation? I don't have a clue, but will figure that out when I find the time.

[TexTown]

I own a ECU-R 2160 series, so I can't use switches to turn inverters on or off, but: shouldn't this 'switch' be in a 'configuration' section of the Invert properties instead of in the 'diagnostics' section?

[HAEdwin]

Ow nice, yes you are so right thank you - I'll include it in the 2.5.1 release.

[TexTown]

One more thing, which might be more complicated if at all possible.

The table 'Compatibility of extra features' in the readme is very useful, I can see if making use of the switches would actually do something or not. But wouldn't it be possible for the integration to somehow distinguish the ECU types? (bases on serial, firmware, or another propertie?)
And after the specific ECU type is found, only show entities it actually provides?
(so I wouldn't see the 'Zero Export Control', but someone with an ECU-C would)

[HAEdwin]

Yes, that would be possible and I thought about that allready. Solution indeed would be to disable the entities that are not applicable. For now (and the energy prices allready become negative), I'll first focus on the functionality and will "beautify" things later.

[HAEdwin]

@c0mplex1 I think it's back to the drawing board, I'm not sure how this can work... need some dedicated time to dive deeper into this.

[c0mplex1]

I think it will work, but only the name "max_panel_power.<inverter_ID>" is choosing slightly 'wrong'
Personally, something like "number.inverter_xxxxxxx_maxpwr" is better, I think.
If I look at the inverter entities you're using, like:

sensor.inverter_xxxxxx_online
sensor.inverter_xxxxxx_signal
switch.inverter_xxxxxx_on_off

then why not:
number.inverter_xxxxxx_maxpwr
For me it's easy to say, for you difficult to create. :)

[HAEdwin]

I agree, was not too hard and got it working now. Almost done with the details. In an automation it's now:

[c0mplex1]

This is awesome.
Exactly what I mean.

FYI, I have ordered an ECU-R Pro and hope to receive it soon, then I can see if controlling the panels using the automation works as I had in mind.

[HAEdwin]

@c0mplex1 Nice! I'm very happy with mine (bought it when I thought the ECU-R 2160 broke down, later it turned out that this was not the case). Anyway I'm going to invest in a few more panels which I link to the ECU-R 2160 so that I'm able to test for that model also. I tried to link the panels/inverters to both but EMA gets confused by that and shuts down one ECU. Prepairing the release now...

[c0mplex1]

@HAEdwin I have version 2.5.1 installed, see the number entities that belong to the inverters and it looks good.
I have not received the ECU-R Pro yet, but as soon as I do, I will test it.
If you want, you can close this thread and if I have any problems I can always open a new thread, right?
For now, it is time for a nice cup of coffee. You deserve it.

[dewi-ny-je]

In anticipation of the abolition of the net metering scheme in 2027, I am considering replacing my ECU-R 2160x with an ECU-R 2162x.

As far as I know, the saldering will disappear meaning that energy returned by people with variable or fixed contracts will not be values as much as the one bought, but the energy produced will still be used to deduct taxes, so even when energy prices are negative, you'll still get 15 cents minus the negative energy price.

It's not worth to stop exporting energy until the negative energy price goes below -15 cents.

I live in NL as well.
If you know for sure I'm wrong, please provide a link so I can update my strategies.

[c0mplex1]

https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/economie/artikel/5498684/klanten-van-greenchoice-zien-terugleververgoeding-zonnestroom

[dewi-ny-je]

https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/economie/artikel/5498684/klanten-van-greenchoice-zien-terugleververgoeding-zonnestroom

That has little to do with what I was talking about.

"en dus de opgewekte stroom (in de zomer) niet meer kunnen wegstrepen tegen het verbruik (in de winter)." (referring to the vergoeding from the energy company, see rest of the paragraph).

But I'm not talking about the "vergoeding" from the energy company which will disappear, I'm talking that (as far as I know) the TAXES on the energy will still be subject to salderen. Taxes are still worth 15 cents, so even if you get zero from the energy company for surplus energy you give away, wou'll still get 15 (virtual) cents from the government which will be deducted from the taxes you pay in winter for energy you buy.

[dewi-ny-je]

See also

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/energie-thuis/salderingsregeling#:~:text=Vanaf%202027%3A%20niet%20meer%20verrekenen,de%20stroom%20die%20zij%20gebruiken.

but it's not at the that clear. We will see, but I doubt that the money for a new ECU will pay itself back so I recommend waiting for the new regulations to be in place.

[dewi-ny-je]

After reading somewhere else it seems you are right, the government will not apply "salderen" to the taxes anymore, so when the value of the energy sold to the network is negative there will be just extra costs.

Likely not enough to pay back an ECU, but I see the point.

[HAEdwin]

On youtube it is explained why a dynamic contract would be better (applies to The Netherlands).

[c0mplex1]

Update:
Last week I received the ECU-R Pro and am working on creating an automation.
I must say that the ECU-R Pro, including the control of the inverters, responds quickly to changes.
The automation should ensure that almost no power goes back to the grid when it is sunny (zero on the electricity meter) and that the panels no longer generate energy when the electricity price is negative.

@HAEdwin
In the table in the readme, it says at number.inverter_{Inverter-ID}_maxpwr in the column ECU-R Pro that this is not possible, this should be YES.

[dewi-ny-je]

The automation should ensure that almost no power goes back to the grid when it is sunny (zero on the electricity meter) and that the panels no longer generate energy when the electricity price is negative

To do it properly it would be important to obtain reliable average values from the DSMR, but the current integration only provides instant values and, unless you set it to "0" (pass to HA every reading), the default setup of 30 seconds between updates simply drops the telegrams in between.

See https://community.home-assistant.io/t/dsmr-integration-should-provide-max-min-and-average-power-values/876067 and if you like it upvote it and inform as many people as you can!

the panels no longer generate energy when the electricity price is negative

I'm actually trying to get some 2-3 kW space heaters to turn on in the garden when power prices are negative enough :)