Declining feed-in tariff in 2026
Excerpt
The EEG feed-in tariff has been at a historic low since February 2026—a turning point for the old feed-in model. Anyone investing in solar power systems today or planning their own system no longer relies on the feed-in tariff, but rather on a smart revenue mix of self-consumption and direct sales. This article shows how investors and companies are strategically capitalizing on this downward trend.
-
The EEG feed-in tariff for new PV systems has been at a historic low since February 2026. For investors and businesses, this decline is not a warning sign—it marks the final separation of the source of returns from government subsidies. Today, the economic drivers are self-consumption (businesses with their own PV systems) and direct sales via the public grid (larger systems, investor model). Investors assess revenue stability and marketing strategies. Companies evaluate their self-consumption share and load profile. → Those who view the decline in feed-in tariffs in 2026 solely as a crisis overlook the real lever: an electricity market that rewards generation only when it is actually needed.
Declining Feed-in Tariffs in 2026: What Does This Mean for Investors and Companies with Solar Power Systems?
The short answer: By 2026, the feed-in tariff will no longer be the main source of return for a solar power system. From an economic standpoint, self-consumption (for businesses with their own systems) and direct sales (for larger systems, such as those in investor-led models) are the key drivers. The sharp decline in the feed-in tariff in 2026 will necessitate a new approach to economic viability—and this article explains exactly what that approach entails.
This article is aimed at two target groups: investors who plan to invest in PV systems in 2026 (typically in the inverter model with direct marketing), and companies that are planning or already operating their own PV system on a commercial or industrial roof. It explains how the declining feed-in tariff affects profitability and investment decisions, which revenue sources will bear the brunt of the burden in 2026—self-consumption or direct marketing—and how existing systems differ from those facing a decline.
The scope here is deliberately strategic: You can find specific feed-in rates for every system size, the exact mechanics of the Solar Peak Act, and all the details on the planned 2027 EEG reform in the linked cluster articles. This is about the implications for your decision—not the complete table.
Where the feed-in tariff stands in 2026
The EEG feed-in tariff for new PV systems with partial feed-in will reach a historic low in 2026 and continues to decline every six months. It now serves merely as a safety net for surplus electricity—no longer the cornerstone of a system’s return on investment. Anyone planning for 2026 is doing so in a market environment where the subsidy is merely a safety net, no longer the core of the business model.
Specifically, this means that starting in early February 2026, newly commissioned photovoltaic systems will receive a single-digit cent amount per kilowatt-hour for the amount of electricity fed into the public grid under partial feed-in. Systems that feed all their electricity into the grid will receive slightly more. The next scheduled adjustment to the feed-in tariff of 1% will take effect on August 1, 2026. The exact rates for each system size and both feed-in options—as well as the historical development of the subsidy since the introduction of the Renewable Energy Sources Act—can be found in our complete 2026 EEG Feed-in Tariff Overview.
This article does not focus on the complete table of feed-in tariffs, but rather on the strategic implications for two target groups: investors in the inverter model and companies that operate or plan to operate their own PV systems.
The real issue isn’t that EEG subsidies are declining. They’ve been doing so for over two decades—as mandated by law, according to schedule, and in regular increments. The issue is that, for the first time in 2026, the feed-in tariff will be so low that it will no longer be sufficient on its own to justify the return on investment for a solar power system. This is precisely what changes the rules of the game for everyone who is investing or building today.
The February 2026 Adjustment in a Political Context
Since February 2026, a further reduction in the EEG feed-in tariff has been in effect for newly commissioned PV systems. This development is being supported politically by the federal government, which, under Federal Minister of Economics Katherina Reiche, is gradually restructuring the subsidy framework to be more market-oriented. A complete abolition of solar subsidies is not on the table—but a shift toward market-oriented revenue models certainly is.
The February 2026 reduction is part of the legally mandated phase-out. For each PV system, the feed-in tariff set at the time of commissioning applies for 20 years—meaning that the current rate applies exclusively to new installations, not existing ones. This often leads to misunderstandings in political and media discussions about the level of the feed-in tariff: reductions are never retroactive, but only apply prospectively.
The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs is sending clear signals that it intends to shift EEG subsidies toward more market-oriented models in the medium term. However, there are no plans to abolish solar subsidies outright—what is under discussion is replacing the fixed feed-in tariff with other mechanisms for certain segments of new installations starting in 2027. The details of this reform are described in the Cluster article on the CfD requirement; here, the focus is on the strategic context: What does this phase-out mean for investment decisions in 2026?
Why the decline makes sense — and what negative electricity prices have to do with it
The decline in subsidies is a direct result of a successful market ramp-up. Photovoltaics is now by far the most cost-effective new source of electricity generation in Germany. Falling module prices, mature inverter technology, and massive expansion of PV installations have objectively reduced the need for subsidies. A subsidy program that has fulfilled its original purpose is inevitably scaled back for political reasons.
What Are Negative Electricity Prices? — A Brief Explanation
Negative electricity prices occur when more electricity is supplied to the power exchange than is demanded—typically during sunny midday hours when solar power generation is high and electricity demand is low. During such hours, the wholesale price drops below zero: electricity consumers are paid to take electricity off the grid. According to the Federal Network Agency, there were a total of 573 hours with negative electricity prices in Germany in 2025—significantly more than in 2024. In response, lawmakers passed the Solar Peak Act in 2025, which fundamentally changed the compensation structure for newly commissioned PV systems during such hours.
The exact mechanics—which systems are affected, how the compensation mechanism works, and the role played by grandfathering provisions and smart meter connectivity—are covered in detail in our separate analysis of negative electricity prices and PV investors. The implication for the 2026 economic feasibility assessment is crucial here: Anyone who generates electricity when no one needs it can no longer plan on a guaranteed feed-in tariff as the basis for their business. The amount of the feed-in tariff becomes a secondary calculation—the primary calculation is the value of each individual kilowatt-hour at the time of its generation.
From Compensation Model to Revenue Mix
By 2026, a PV system will no longer derive its profitability from a single source of revenue, but rather from a combination of sources: self-consumption (reduced electricity purchases for businesses) and direct sales via the public grid (for larger systems, typically under an investor-owned model). The feed-in tariff serves as a safety net for surplus electricity, not a mainstay. Which revenue source dominates depends on the system size and target audience.
The key factor has shifted. For businesses, the avoided purchase price is significantly higher than the current feed-in tariff, depending on their consumption category—meaning that self-consumed electricity is the most valuable kilowatt of all. Direct marketing, in turn, opens up access to the electricity exchange, where revenues fluctuate significantly over the course of the year and can be far higher in certain hours than the fixed remuneration per kilowatt-hour. Specific market values, monthly fluctuations, and PPA comparison figures are available in our overview of direct marketing of PV electricity.
Under this logic, self-consumption will become significantly more important in 2026—for two reasons: First, because the feed-in tariff per kilowatt-hour is decreasing. Second, because direct marketing is more logistically complicated than the traditional fixed-rate tariff, especially for very small systems—so the economic incentive automatically shifts toward self-consumption.
Three ways to monetize the electricity generated by a modern PV system in 2026:
| Revenue stream | Economic value per kWh | Primarily for |
|---|---|---|
| Self-consumption (avoided purchases) | 25–37 cents per kWh, depending on the purchase price | Companies with their own solar power systems |
| Direct marketing via the public network | highly variable, with peaks above a fixed rate | Larger facilities / Investor model |
| EEG Feed-in Tariff (Fixed Rate) | single-digit — see EEG-Pillar | Residual current / Ground fault circuit interrupter |
What Companies Should Be Reviewing Now
Companies with their own PV systems primarily increase their profitability through the proportion of self-consumption. The higher this proportion, the less their operations depend on the feed-in tariff. For most industrial and commercial roofs, current electricity prices are the real driver of returns—not the subsidies provided under the EEG.
The following overview shows how the purchase price leverages self-consumption depending on the consumption class. Under this logic, the feed-in tariff is at the very bottom—as a benchmark, not as a driver:
| Energy efficiency class | Typical purchase price | Self-consumption leverage |
|---|---|---|
| Small businesses (≤ 50,000 kWh/year) | approx. 30–37 cents per kWh | very high |
| Medium-sized business (50,000–500,000 kWh/year) | approx. 25–30 cents/kWh | high |
| EEG Feed-in Tariff (Comparison) | single-digit (see Pillar) | safety net |
The practical implication for operations is that the PV system’s load profile and generation profile must match. Anyone who generates power at midday and consumes it in the evening needs either a suitable storage solution or a well-planned load shifting strategy—otherwise, the most valuable kilowatt-hours will be fed into the grid as surplus PV power and will only be compensated at the lower feed-in tariff rate.
The achievable self-consumption rate depends on the specific load profile—and on whether a battery storage system shifts the energy generated at midday into the evening. Our guide to PV systems with battery storage covers which self-consumption rates are realistic with and without storage, which storage sizes are worthwhile for your consumption, and how the system’s cost-effectiveness actually works out. For a system in a small commercial setting, self-consumption plays a different economic role than for an industrial system—the relative gap to the feed-in tariff is greatest in small commercial settings because the purchase price is highest there.
What Investors Should Be Looking Into Now
For investors in PV systems, the focus is shifting from the level of subsidies to revenue stability: site quality, marketing strategy, storage options, and contractual safeguards. The decline in feed-in tariffs starting in 2026 will not render all system models unprofitable—it will render low-quality systems unprofitable. That is the most important factor.
The key question for investors has shifted. It is no longer “What rate per kilowatt-hour will I receive?”, but rather “What revenue mix will my system actually generate over 25–30 years?”. This includes the marketing strategy, storage integration, maintenance plan, and the quality of the marketing partner.
Anyone who invests in a plant whose profitability relies solely on EEG feed-in tariffs is missing the mark. Anyone who invests in a plant that combines multiple revenue streams—direct sales as the primary source, storage to shift output to higher-priced hours, and EEG as a safety net for the rest—has already factored in the decline.
Six criteria for identifying a system resistant to sink flight
The following checklist is specifically designed to address the question raised by the decline in feed-in tariffs starting in 2026: What characteristics must a PV system have to remain economically viable over 25 to 30 years—regardless of the fixed tariff rates in each individual half-year? This isn’t about return figures or tax leverage; those are covered in the relevant Cluster Owner articles. It’s about the quality characteristics that make the difference in a market environment marked by declining feed-in tariffs.
| Evaluation criterion | What matters for descent resistance | Resilience |
|---|---|---|
| Marketing Strategy | Direct sales as the primary source of revenue; the EEG is intended solely as a safety net | high |
| Marketing partner | Experienced direct marketer, long-term contract, transparent billing | high |
| Location quality | Irradiance, lack of shading, module tilt — these factors determine annual output in every market phase | high |
| System size | Large enough for efficient direct marketing, small enough for a straightforward grid connection | medium |
| Storage option | Storage can be planned from the outset or added later — decoupling generation from unfavorable market hours | medium |
| Contractual protection | Clear maintenance, insurance, and management contracts — minimize disruptions to revenue | high |
The checklist deliberately omits specific ct/kWh figures, return on investment figures, or tax incentives—these are covered in the respective specialized cluster articles, where they are clearly documented. It serves as a qualitative filter to distinguish between plant models that all look the same “on paper” but perform differently in terms of economic viability in the long run.
For more information on the structural changes to the market starting in 2027, please see our article on the CfD requirement for PV investors starting in 2027.
The underrated advantage: more affordable systems
As the feed-in tariff in cents per kilowatt-hour declines, so do the specific installation costs—and with them, the break-even point. A modern PV system is now significantly cheaper per installed kilowatt than it was ten years ago. If you look only at the subsidy amount, you’re missing the bigger picture.
The way returns are calculated in 2026 differs from how they were in 2014. Back then, the government paid a significantly higher subsidy per kilowatt-hour over a 20-year period—and system costs were correspondingly high. Today, the feed-in tariff is low, but the system itself has become financially viable. This fundamentally changes the logic of profitability: It is not the subsidy amount that determines the return on a PV system, but rather the quality of the system and the wisdom of the revenue mix. You can find specific €/kWp values and detailed cost structures in our PV Investment Cost Analysis 2026.
Risks, Policy Framework, and Outlook
Three risks must be taken seriously: further scheduled adjustments to compensation on a semi-annual basis, the transition to a new marketing system starting in 2027, and volatile wholesale prices with further negative electricity prices. None of these risks will undermine the PV business model. However, they will shift the focus of what constitutes success for investors and companies: it will no longer be the one with the largest plant, but the one with the smartest revenue mix.
Politically, the Solar Peak Act, which took effect in 2025, remains the most important regulatory framework. In particular, it governs the technical controllability of new PV systems via the public grid and the compensation mechanism during hours when electricity prices on the exchange are negative. The regulatory details—including those regarding smart meter connectivity—are covered in the NEGS article. In practice, this means that system designs without a direct marketing option and without smart meters will no longer be up to date by 2026.
Outlook: What does the future hold for feed-in tariffs?
Subsidies continue to decline on a semi-annual basis—this is mandated by law and has been foreseeable for years. In the medium term, a structural shift is also on the horizon: away from fixed feed-in tariffs and toward market-oriented revenue models such as direct marketing and difference contracts. In practice, this means that the future subsidy landscape will be more strongly oriented toward self-consumption and direct marketing. Investment strategies based purely on fixed-feed-in-tariff logic will no longer work in a few years — whereas plant models with a smart revenue mix will. You can find the exact deadlines and thresholds for the planned reform in our analysis of the 2027 CfD requirement; the current feed-in-tariff rates are listed in the EEG feed-in-tariff overview.
Industry Discussion: Could the restructuring process slow down expansion?
There is intense debate within the industry over whether the elimination of guaranteed feed-in tariffs for certain segments of new installations could deter private investment and, in particular, slow the expansion of rooftop solar systems. Logic Energy is closely monitoring this discussion. Our position: For well-structured systems with a carefully planned revenue mix, the risk is significantly lower than the public debate suggests. For system models that rely exclusively on fixed feed-in tariffs, however, the risk is very real.
The following overview summarizes the screening criteria for both target groups—as a decision-making guide, not as a statement regarding return on investment or risk:
| Checkpoint | Investor (inverter model) | Company (Own facility) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary value driver | Stability of returns over the term | Self-consumption / avoided purchases |
| Role of the feed-in tariff | Residual current capture line | Surplus reserve |
| Is storage relevant? | depending on the concept | usually yes |
| Key questions to consider before signing the contract / starting construction | How is the revenue mix secured in the long term? | What is the achievable self-consumption rate? |
For a complete overview of the investor model, the inverter revenue-sharing scheme, and the minimum investment requirement: Go to PV Investment →
The feed-in tariff is declining—the question isn’t whether PV systems will still be viable in 2026, but how you structure your system. Logic Energy designs PV systems that don’t rely on a single source of revenue, but are designed from the outset to leverage a mix of revenue streams: direct sales via the public grid, self-consumption (for business customers), and optional storage integration. As part of mediplan Helm e.K., we assume responsibility with personal owner liability—this applies to system quality as well as to our inverter model with revenue sharing. Talk to us without obligation about your location or your investment profile. Contact us →
This article is intended solely for general informational purposes and does not constitute investment, tax, or legal advice. The market and purchase price ranges mentioned reflect the situation as of April 28, 2026, and are subject to change at short notice. Return estimates are not guarantees—the actual profitability of any PV investment or PV system depends on individual location, market, and load factors. Before making any investment decision, we recommend consulting an independent tax advisor and/or investment advisor. Logic Energy / mediplan Helm e.K. assumes no liability for financial decisions made based on this article.
FAQ
-
In 2026, the feed-in tariff per kilowatt-hour will no longer be the main source of return for a PV system, but rather a safety net for surplus electricity. Economic viability will stem from the revenue mix: self-consumption (for businesses) or direct sales (for investors). Specific feed-in tariff rates can be found in the EEG-Pillar.
-
Because profitability no longer depends on subsidies. For businesses, the savings on electricity costs are the key factor in determining returns. For investors, direct sales account for the bulk of the revenue. In addition, installation costs have fallen significantly in recent years.
-
No. Plant models whose profitability relies solely on the EEG feed-in tariff will become unprofitable. Plants with a smart revenue mix—self-consumption (for businesses) or direct marketing (for investor models)—will continue to perform even as the feed-in tariff declines. The decline in feed-in tariffs in 2026 therefore does not separate PV from profitability, but rather draws a clearer distinction between poorly and well-structured systems.
-
No. The feed-in tariff set at the time of commissioning applies for 20 years—existing systems retain their subsidy for the entire duration. The reduction in the feed-in tariff in 2026 applies exclusively to newly commissioned PV systems.
-
The focus on returns is shifting from the level of subsidies to the quality of direct marketing and the stability of the revenue mix over the project’s lifespan. Solar power plants with a clear marketing strategy and well-considered site selection are less vulnerable to regulatory changes.
-
Because the purchase price is several times higher than the EEG feed-in tariff, depending on the consumption class. Every kilowatt-hour consumed on-site is significantly more valuable than any fed into the public grid. Load profile optimization and, if necessary, a storage system will often be the most important levers in 2026.
-
In 2026, the feed-in tariff will be the lowest of the three revenue options. A storage system shifts electricity from feed-in (low tariff) to self-consumption (significantly higher avoided purchase costs)—thereby making the EEG feed-in tariff even less economically viable. Whether a storage system is actually cost-effective depends on the load profile; the economic rationale is discussed in detail in the BATT guide.
Sources
energie-experten.org – Historical trend in feed-in tariffs: 57.4 ct/kWh (2004) → 7.78 ct/kWh (2026)
CHP Information Center – Negative Electricity Prices in 2025: A Record 573 Hours, Seasonal Pattern
gruenes.haus – PV Price Trends for March 2026: Average €1,015/kWp, Storage Average €315/kWh
GÖRG Attorneys at Law – Draft EEG 2027: CfD System Change Planned for January 2027 (March 9, 2026)
All information is provided without warranty. As of March 2026. EEG regulations and feed-in tariffs are subject to change.
