Since January 2025, Swiss storage without end consumption has been exempt from network usage charges. That reform was widely reported. What it did not touch is the one-off contribution a grid operator can levy when the battery connects — the Netzkostenbeitrag — which is calculated on ordered withdrawal capacity, is not refundable, and is set by each distribution utility separately. Within one operator's published schedule alone, the same 8 MW connection ranges from CHF 112,000 to CHF 648,000 depending only on the voltage level it ties into.
Swiss electricity law starts from a definition that is awkward for storage. Under Art. 4 of the Electricity Supply Act (StromVG), an end consumer is someone who draws electricity from the grid for their own use or in order to store it. A battery charging from the grid is, on the face of the statute, a consumer. The reform package that wrote those words into Art. 4 supplied the exception at the same time — both took effect together on 1 January 2025.[7]
The exception is Art. 14a StromVG. Storage without end consumption — a standalone battery that takes electricity from the distribution grid and feeds it back later at the same point — owes no network usage fee. Article 14a also explicitly exempts electricity used to drive pumps at pumped-storage plants. Where a battery sits behind a site that also consumes, Art. 14a instead provides for partial reimbursement on electricity re-fed to the grid — a provision that entered into force a year later, on 1 January 2026, and covers the energy component and specified statutory surcharges, rather than the capacity and basic charges (Articles 18d–18e StromVV).[6, 7, 8]
That is a recurring charge on energy flow. It is not the only way a grid operator recovers costs from a new connection, and it is not the first cost a project incurs.
The 2025 exemption removed the ongoing fee on cycled energy. The one-off contribution towards grid dimensioning — assessed on the capacity you order, before the battery has cycled a single kilowatt-hour — was not part of that reform.
Swiss grid connection charges come in two parts, and conflating them is the most common error we see in early-stage BESS budgets. The Netzanschlussbeitrag covers the physical connection itself — cable, transformation and everything else from the coupling point inward. It is essentially construction cost, and it is unavoidable and site-specific.[2]
The Netzkostenbeitrag is a different instrument. The industry standard that most Swiss operators follow, the VSE's Branchenempfehlung Netzanschluss, defines it as a contribution levied on the basis of the ordered connection capacity, compensating the operator for the network dimensioning and expansion costs that the order causes, directly and indirectly. It is a one-off payment. It is charged on capacity you reserve, not energy you use. And it is not reclaimable if your actual demand later turns out to be lower.[2]
Now the part that matters for storage, and that is easy to miss. The same industry recommendation states plainly that operators which levy a Netzkostenbeitrag may also levy it on storage facilities with no connected end consumption, on the agreed withdrawal capacity. The Art. 14a exemption does not travel across. A battery can be simultaneously exempt from the recurring network usage fee and liable for a six-figure one-off contribution calculated on its withdrawal capacity.[2]
Switzerland has roughly 600 grid operators, and the Netzkostenbeitrag sits outside the federally regulated network tariff. ElCom, the national regulator, does not supervise it — reviewing these contributions falls to municipalities and cantons — and the industry recommendation is exactly that, a recommendation, leaving both the decision to levy and the rate to each utility. Before comparing operators, though, it is worth seeing how much the figure varies inside a single published tariff. The schedule below is SAK's, in force since 1 July 2025, and the right-hand column is simply its rates applied to an 8 MW connection.[1, 4, 5, 6]
| Network level (SAK schedule) | Netzkostenbeitrag | On an 8 MW connection |
|---|---|---|
| High voltage (NE3) | CHF 14.00 / kW | CHF 112,000 |
| Transformation (NE4) | CHF 50.00 / kW | CHF 400,000 |
| Medium voltage (NE5a) | CHF 54.00 / kW | CHF 432,000 |
| Medium voltage (NE5b) | CHF 81.00 / kW | CHF 648,000 |
| Low voltage | No general contribution currently levied | — |
The first thing to notice is that none of this variation involves a second operator. Within one utility's own schedule, the same 8 MW incurs a contribution of CHF 112,000 or CHF 648,000 — a factor of almost six — determined purely by the network level at which the project connects. Where a project connects is not merely an engineering question, and the cheapest connection point is not always the nearest one.[1]
Comparing across operators is harder than it should be, and that difficulty is itself the finding. Tariff sheets differ in what they publish and even in the units they use: BKW, for instance, prices the contribution for low-voltage connections per ampere rather than per kilowatt — and its sheet expressly covers consumption installations including storage. Other operators publish no schedule at all and settle the contribution inside the individual connection agreement. There is no reliable way to know the number for a given site other than to ask the responsible operator, in writing, early.[3]
There is a further asymmetry worth naming. The same industry recommendation that permits a contribution on a battery's withdrawal capacity states that none may be levied on the feed-in capacity of a generating installation. A battery therefore tends to be treated as a consumer on the way in and as a producer on the way out — it attracts the charge attached to withdrawal without the corresponding relief on injection. For an asset whose entire function is to do both, that is a structurally unhelpful classification. It is worth stressing that this sits in an industry recommendation rather than in the statute itself, which is precisely why practice varies between operators.[2]
Because the contribution attaches to ordered rather than consumed capacity, and because it is not refundable when demand proves lower, the capacity figure written into a connection agreement is one of the least reversible decisions in the whole development sequence. Where an operator publishes a rounding rule, that too runs one way — SAK's schedule, for instance, assesses excess demand in increments rounded up to the next 100 kW. Ordering generous headroom "in case the project grows" converts directly into a permanent cost with no mechanism for recovery if the growth does not arrive.[1, 2]
This is where connection-capacity discipline stops being a technical detail and becomes a commercial one. The right number falls out of the same analysis that sizes the battery: what the binding constraint actually is, how the site's load behaves across a full year, and how much simultaneity there genuinely is between charging and site demand. In our industrial BESS + PV case study, a year of quarter-hour meter data set the host-side sizing answer from a single December cluster of peak hours — the same discipline applies to the capacity you contract for at the connection point.
It also reframes the value of an existing connection. A site already connected at medium voltage, with headroom outside its production peaks, may materially shorten the connection process — and because the capacity was contracted long ago, the project may avoid or reduce any incremental contribution entirely. That is a materially different starting position from a greenfield node, and it compounds the siting logic we set out in our analysis of behind-the-meter versus grid-node siting.
None of this is exotic diligence. It is simply grid connection diligence that tends to happen late, after a site has been chosen for other reasons and the connection tariff arrives as a surprise. The questions are these:
Does this operator levy a Netzkostenbeitrag, and does it publish the rate? Some publish a per-kilowatt schedule; others set the contribution inside the individual connection agreement, where it can only be discussed before signature. This single fact can move a project's upfront cost base by several hundred thousand francs.
On what capacity basis, and at which network level? Rates can differ dramatically by network level, as the SAK schedule illustrates — a factor of almost six across that one tariff. A connection point that permits a higher-voltage tie may be worth pursuing on cost grounds alone, independent of its technical merits.
How does the operator treat storage specifically? The industry recommendation permits the contribution to be levied on standalone storage, but permission is not an obligation, and practice varies. This is a question to put in writing early, not to infer.
Is the ordered capacity right, or merely comfortable? Non-refundable, rounded upward, and set before commissioning — this number deserves the same scrutiny as the battery sizing itself, and it should come from the same load analysis.
The connection contribution reads differently depending on what you hold — but it rewards the same discipline.
An existing medium-voltage connection with unused headroom may materially shorten the connection process — and can reduce or avoid incremental connection contributions altogether. Industrial sites
Which operator a plot falls under, and at what voltage level it can be tied in, are commercial facts about the land — not just technical ones. Land for battery storage
Grid connection tariffs are published. Establishing them before a site is committed is the cheapest diligence available in Swiss BESS development. Developers & partners
Source corrections and excerpts checked on 4 September 2026. Original-language fragments are labelled; source dates and scope are stated below.
kantonalen Anschlussbedingungen nicht zuständig
CurvatureEnergy translation: “not responsible for cantonal connection conditions”
Header image: AI-generated illustration for this analysis, not a photograph of an existing project or evidence of a specific site, connection or approval.