Dutch Battery Storage Survival Guide: Beat Grid Fees in Netherlands

The Netherlands is experiencing a battery storage revolution—capacity doubled in 2024, with over 600 MWh now online and thousands more in development. Yet, despite soaring demand, many projects face an existential threat: punishing grid fees that slash profits by 30% or more. While Germany waives these costs to accelerate storage adoption, Dutch regulators cling to outdated rules that treat batteries as “consumers” rather than essential grid assets. This policy misstep could stall Europe’s most promising storage market—unless regulators act fast.

The Dutch Battery Paradox: Growth vs. Grid Fees

The numbers tell a story of explosive growth. Since 2023, large-scale commercial and industrial battery energy storage systems（above 1 MWh） installations surged from 40 to 84, with total capacity jumping 81% to 620 MWh. Another 3,000 MWh are under construction, driven by the Netherlands’ urgent need to balance its wind and solar-heavy grid. But beneath this progress lies a glaring contradiction: while batteries help solve grid congestion, Dutch regulators impose some of Europe’s highest fees on them—up to €23/MWh, compared to €0 in Germany.

This discrepancy stems from a regulatory quirk. The Netherlands’ Consumer and Markets Authority (ACM) classifies standalone batteries as “consumers,” forcing them to pay steep variable transmission tariffs. In contrast, Germany exempts storage from these fees, recognizing their role in stabilizing the grid. The result? Dutch projects face longer payback periods, and developers increasingly divert investments to Germany, where policies actively encourage storage deployment.

Why This Battle Matters

Battery storage should be a no-brainer for the Netherlands. The country’s grid congestion is among Europe’s worst, with solar and wind curtailment becoming routine. Batteries could absorb excess renewable power and release it when needed, easing strain on overloaded networks. Yet, instead of incentivizing this solution, Dutch policy penalizes it.

The financial impact is severe. For a typical 50 MW battery, grid fees can erase €1 million or more in annual revenue—enough to make or break a project. Unsurprisingly, developers are shifting focus to hybrid setups, combining batteries with solar or wind farms to avoid fees entirely. Over 80% of new Dutch storage projects now follow this model, a clear market signal that standalone batteries are at a disadvantage.

Can the Netherlands Fix Its Storage Policy?

The solution lies in regulatory reform. TenneT, the Dutch grid operator, has already introduced workarounds like the ATR85 contract, which cuts fees by 65% for batteries that operate flexibly. But this is a temporary fix. The real change must come from ACM, which is under pressure to reclassify batteries as “flexibility assets” rather than consumers. A decision is expected by December 2025—and the entire industry is watching.

If the Netherlands aligns its policies with Germany’s, its storage market could explode, unlocking billions in investment. If not, developers will continue fleeing to friendlier markets, leaving Dutch grid congestion to worsen. The choice is clear: embrace batteries as part of the energy transition, or watch the revolution happen elsewhere.