Faster Access to Electricity Grid for Parties with Social Function

This is the sequel to our blog on the appeals lodged against the ACM’s prioritization framework. What was this about again?

In 2024, the ACM established a prioritization framework for the handling of transmission requests on the electricity grid from parties that contribute to a social objective. In principle, grid managers have to handle transport requests in order of receipt (first come, first served). However, the crowded grid has caused long waiting lists, which puts social functions at risk. Under the prioritization framework grid managers are obliged to give priority to parties that fulfil a social function included in the framework. These parties will get priority as soon as there is room available on the grid.   

In its initial framework, the ACM had chosen to give priority only to social functions mentioned in the EU Security of Gas Supply Regulation. Many parties, including VodafoneZiggo, have successfully appealed against this choice. The highest administrative court in this field – the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal – set aside this ACM decision, but also held that the ACM has the power to establish a framework independently. The ACM was therefore allowed to shed the tight straitjacket of the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. After a public consultation round, the ACM prepared a new prioritization framework, which entered into effect on 31 December 2025.

The framework gives priority to three types of parties:

- Category 1: Congestion softeners
These are parties that create extra capacity on the electricity grid, such as large-scale battery systems. This category is given the highest priority. Applications within this category are handled in order of their efficiency. 
- Category 2: Security
These are functions essential to national security and vital processes, including emergency health care, public drinking water supply, specific closed communication systems, the police, the fire brigade and security services. Security is a precondition for the functioning of society. If these functions do not get (additional) transmission capacity, this could result in serious damage to national security, physical safety or public services. That is why these functions get priority over basic needs.
- Category 3: Basic needs
These are social functions that are crucial to the day-to-day functioning of society, including waste management, education, public transport, telecommunication and housing needs. The inability to perform these functions leads to serious social disruption or great public nuisance. These functions therefore get priority over non-prioritized parties.

In categories 2 and 3, requests are still handled in order of receipt. 

Limited use will be made of the prioritization framework to create more room on the electricity grid. Qualification as a congestion softener is subject to strict conditions. For example, the definition of congestion softener requires that a grid manager determines that if a party is allocated transmission capacity, the transmission capacity available to other parties will increase, and will not add to congestion in another part of the grid; this must be determined on the basis of data as up-to-date as possible. Moreover, the congestion softening party has to conclude an agreement with the grid manager in which they undertake to act as a congestion softener on instructions of the grid manager. In other words, the grid manager must be able to enforce that charging behaviour will actually have a grid-relieving effect. Voluntary or market-driven ‘grid-conscious conduct’ cannot be a consideration for allocating priority. 

Understandable as it may be, some opportunities for using more flexibility may remain unused in this system. Charging post infrastructure and electric vehicles are not within the congestion softener category, unless they conclude an agreement with the grid manager under which instructions of that grid manager will be followed at all times. In view of the enormous and growing number of electric vehicles and the demand for more charging infrastructure (including at new homes and large renovations of buildings, but also at public charging facilities), using new charging infrastructure flexibly would be precisely beneficial. Being granted priority as a congestion softener could have been a nice leg-up for charging post operators or other parties to deal with this transmission capacity in a grid-conscious way. A more voluntary incentive or market-driven criterion might also do the trick. 

The ACM has struggled with the question whether to include telecommunication in the framework, in both category 2 and 3. Although telecommunication obviously serves a public interest, it can also be used for services with less social relevance (such as endless doomscrolling). Initially the ACM only wanted to include telecommunication in category 2, and only as far as a request was necessary to ensure uninterrupted access to the emergency number 112 and NL-Alert. 

Several parties have pointed out to the ACM that it is legally and practically impossible to distinguish ‘socially relevant’ from ‘not socially relevant’ data traffic. Network providers cannot distinguish traffic to emergency services from other data traffic. What is more, digital connectedness and well-functioning telecommunication networks are preconditions to the functioning of Dutch society. This makes telecommunication a basic need. 

In the final version of the framework, the ACM has chosen not to include access to emergency services via the public network in category 2. According to the ACM, the accessibility of these services is guaranteed sufficiently under the Telecommunications Act. However, the ACM did choose to place access to public telecommunication networks in category 3, thus acknowledging the social importance of robust telecommunication networks after a lengthy procedure. 

Practice will have to show whether the prioritization framework will actually contribute to faster access to the electricity grid for parties with a social objective. The ACM will evaluate this framework after two years.

The prioritization framework offers no direct solution for grid congestion and will only offer solace for a few social parties in the short term. Other parties that are confronted with grid congestion can search for creative solutions in collaboration with other parties. Kennedy Van der Laan will be happy to help you. For inspiration, please visit our website.