The expiration of a key regulation could leave unclear the rules governing the charge paid by households with solar panels in Panama.
The transitional rule that currently limits this charge expires on December 31, and the National Public Services Authority (ASEP) has not yet finalized the proposal that will replace it, as the agency confirmed in writing in August to the specialized publication Nexo.
The news comes alongside another fundamental change in the Panamanian electricity sector. ASEP approved new tariff schedules for energy distribution and commercialization that took effect on September 1 and will remain in force until August 31, 2030.
Regarding the "solar tax," the publication acknowledges that the term causes confusion, but there is no such tax on sunlight. What is under discussion is a charge for the use of the electrical grid: the poles, cables, and transformers that carry electricity to each home.
A house with solar panels, it notes, injects energy during the day and draws it back from that same grid at night, as if it functioned like a battery. Today it pays only the difference between what it draws and what it delivers, with no additional charge for the use of the infrastructure.
The grid costs the same whether or not a customer with panels uses it, and nearly all of that expense is passed on to the bill per kilowatt consumed.
If a customer with panels pays less for using the same infrastructure, that cost does not disappear — and it ends up being borne by other customers, au…
AI Brief
Your highlights
A worker adjusts a solar panel on the roof of a business against the urban landscape of Panama City. (Illustrative image Infobae)
The expiration of a key regulation could leave the charge paid by households with solar panels in Panama without clear rules. The transitional rule that currently limits this charge expires on December 31, and the National Public Services Authority (ASEP) has not yet finalized the proposal to replace it, as the agency confirmed in writing in August to the specialized publication Nexo. The news comes alongside another fundamental change in the Panamanian electricity sector. The ASEP approved new tariff schedules for energy distribution and commercialization that took effect on September 1 and will remain in force until August 31, 2030.
Regarding the "sun tax," the publication acknowledges that the term generates confusion, but there is no such tax on sunlight. What is under discussion is a charge for the use of the electrical grid: the poles, cables, and transformers that carry electricity to each home. A house with solar panels, it notes, injects energy during the day and draws it back from that same grid at night, as if it functioned as a battery. Today it pays only the difference between what it draws and what it delivers, with no additional charge for the use of the infrastructure.
A residence equipped with solar panels stands in front of the skyscraper skyline and the bay of Panama City. (Illustrative image Infobae)
The grid costs the same whether or not a customer with panels uses it, and almost all of that expense is passed on to the bill per kilowatt consumed. If those with panels pay less for using the same infrastructure, that cost does not disappear—and it ends up being borne by other customers, although in Panama there is still no public figure for how much this shift represents. In 2024, Nexo adds, customers with solar panels under the BTS tariff (households and small businesses) drew 38.8 gigawatt hours (GWh) from the grid and returned 27.1 GWh. The proportion is equivalent to seven kilowatt hours (kWh) returned for every 10 taken. Today this group totals only 7,812 customers, according to data the ASEP provided to the outlet, so the cost shift to the rest of users is still small.
Under the light of a light bulb, a Panamanian man examines his electricity bill from ENSA and EDEMET, reflecting concern about service costs. (Illustrative image Infobae)
The current regulation sets a cap of 5% of consumption and 16% of demand per distributor. Nexo also recalled that, in 2019, the ASEP had already ruled out creating a specific charge for grid use, which leaves open the question of what formula will apply starting in 2027.
In Panama, this is not a tax on solar energy, but rather the charge that some countries and experts propose so that households with panels pay for using the electrical grid, even when they inject energy during the day and draw it back at night. As of January, solar self-consumption in Panama surpassed the 7,000-user barrier and reached an installed capacity of 192 megawatts (MW), according to the records monitored by the ASEP. The figure confirms the acceleration of renewable energy adoption in both homes and businesses.
This growth is supported by the regulatory framework of Law 37 of 2013, which enabled distributed generation in the country. For companies, installing panels has become a tool for reducing operating costs and improving their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indicators. The aim is for households with panels to pay for using the electrical grid, even when they inject energy during the day and draw it back at night. The consolidation of this market also opens up business opportunities in the installation, financing, and maintenance of photovoltaic equipment.
The sustained increase in so-called prosumers—users who both consume and produce energy—is changing the rules of the Panamanian electricity sector and poses new challenges for the modernization of the distribution infrastructure.
Facing the new tariff schedule in effect since September, the Ministry of Economy and Finance adopted measures so that the adjustment does not fall on households. The Tariff Stabilization Fund (FET) covers all customers with consumption of up to 300 kWh, while the Western Tariff Fund (FTO) benefits most users in the provinces of Chiriquí and Bocas del Toro. Due to state contributions to both funds, most customers will see no increase in their bill between September and December 2026. For the rest, who could see an increase in that period, the State will provide an additional contribution covering the difference and avoiding a higher payment on the bill, it was stated.