Energy pricing must reflect cost causation. When it does not, inefficiencies accumulate quietly until correction becomes unavoidable. Net-billing restores economic symmetry. The grid compensates surplus power at a rate aligned with its avoided cost, while consumers benefit most when they use what they generate. This prevents cross-subsidisation where non-solar consumers indirectly underwrite private returns.
Importantly, the policy does not undermine investment logic. Payback periods remain viable, particularly as panel costs decline and efficiency improves. What changes is the assumption of guaranteed arbitrage. A sustainable energy transition requires rules that scale. Net billing does exactly that. It preserves incentives while protecting system integrity. Policy stability does not mean policy stagnation. In this case, adjustment strengthens credibility.
Mahnoor Zahid
Islamabad
*****
I run a small retail shop and, like many business owners, my biggest concern is the monthly electricity bill. That is why I installed solar in the first place. Most of my electricity is used during the day, when the shop is open. Lights, fans and cooling systems all run during business hours, which is exactly when solar panels generate power. My main goal was to cut costs, not to earn money by selling electricity back to the grid.
There is a lot of debate about the shift from net-metering to net-billing, but for small businesses like mine, selling electricity back to the grid was never the main attraction. What matters is predictable savings every month. Solar still provides that. The grid cannot act like a free battery for everyone. If the new system encourages people to use their own solar power first, that seems like common sense.
Natasha Soomro
Hyderabad
