When Net Zero Goes Wrong: A Regulatory Blind Spot in Domestic Solar and Battery Schemes

Like many households, we wanted to reduce our energy costs and our carbon footprint. In 2024, we entered into what appeared to be a sensible, regulated arrangement: a long-term solar and battery lease linked to a licensed UK energy supplier. The scheme promised predictable costs, professionally installed renewable technology, and ongoing technical monitoring and support.

On paper, it looked like exactly the kind of consumer-facing innovation the UK needs to support the transition to net zero.

What followed has exposed a serious regulatory gap.

A system installed — then taken out of reach

A solar PV system and battery were installed at our home. Initially, we were able to monitor the system through the manufacturer’s app, allowing us to see solar generation, battery charging and discharging, and grid import and export. This visibility matters. It is how households understand whether systems are operating safely and efficiently, and how they manage energy use.

In 2025, an engineer acting on behalf of the supplier removed the manufacturer’s monitoring hardware and replaced it with a proprietary 4G/5G modem. This was not requested by us. We were told that the existing app would no longer function, but that a replacement monitoring platform would be provided.

That replacement never arrived.

Despite repeated phone calls, emails, and a formal complaint, access to monitoring was never restored. From that point on, we had no visibility over how a system installed on our own property was performing.

Supplier failure — and no clear accountability

Shortly afterwards, the energy supplier’s licence was revoked and the company entered administration. Under the Supplier of Last Resort process, we were transferred to a new supplier, as intended under existing protections.

But the renewable assets remained physically attached to our home.

We were subsequently informed that ownership of the solar and battery system sat with a separate asset company. That company has provided no communication, no support route, and no guidance. In practice, it is uncontactable.

The result is a deeply uncomfortable position for consumers:

Renewable technology installed on their homes

No access to monitoring or system data

No clarity on who is responsible for safety, performance, or maintenance

Higher energy costs following transfer to a new supplier

No obvious route to redress

A regulatory gap, not an isolated complaint

This is not about one company or one household. It is about structure.

The current regulatory framework appears to treat:

energy supply,

asset ownership,

system monitoring, and

consumer protection

as separate silos.

When a supplier fails after installing long-term renewable assets on homes, those silos collide — and consumers fall into the gaps between them.

Ofgem has confirmed that successor suppliers are not obliged to honour prior commercial arrangements. That may be correct in law, but it leaves unanswered questions:

Who ensures households can monitor and understand systems installed on their property?

Who is accountable for safety oversight where monitoring has been deliberately removed?

What protections exist when renewable schemes are bundled with supply contracts that later fail?

How can consumer confidence in domestic renewables be maintained if this scenario is allowed to repeat?

Why this matters for net zero

Domestic solar and battery systems are being actively encouraged as part of the UK’s decarbonisation strategy. Leasing and subscription-style models are likely to grow, particularly for households that cannot afford upfront costs.

If these models fail without clear accountability, the consequences go beyond individual financial detriment:

trust in renewable schemes erodes

consumer confidence weakens

future uptake slows

public support for net-zero policies is undermined

This is precisely the wrong outcome at a time when public buy-in is essential.

What I have done — and why

I have raised this issue with:

Ofgem

The Energy Ombudsman

Citizens Advice and Trading Standards

The Information Commissioner’s Office

The Competition and Markets Authority

My Member of Parliament

The Energy Security & Net Zero Select Committee

I have also submitted Freedom of Information requests to understand what regulators and advisory bodies already knew about these kinds of schemes.

This is not about blame. It is about identifying and fixing a policy failure before more households are affected.

What needs examination

At a minimum, policymakers should examine:

accountability for monitoring and safety where renewable assets remain installed post-supplier failure

consumer rights to access system data for equipment on their property

safeguards around long-term solar and battery leasing models

regulatory coordination when energy supply and asset ownership are split

whether existing protections are fit for purpose as domestic renewables scale up

A constructive conclusion

The transition to net zero will require innovation, experimentation, and new commercial models. But innovation without clear consumer protection carries risks.

This experience suggests that the regulatory framework has not yet caught up with the reality of domestic renewable deployment. That gap can be closed — but only if it is acknowledged.

This is an issue worth examining now, calmly and seriously, before it becomes a wider problem that damages trust in the very transition it was meant to support