The grid bill becomes visible: what rising network tariffs mean for the conversation about grid expansion

An average of 140 euros a year. That is roughly how much more a Dutch household is likely to pay in 2027 for the transport of electricity and gas. On 7 October the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), the energy regulator, published the regional grid operators’ tariff proposals for 2027: around 89 euros extra for electricity and 52 euros for gas, an average increase of about 20 percent. For comparison, the increase for 2026 was 25 euros a year.

Two days later came the draft decision on time-of-use network tariffs for small consumers from 2029. And on 14 October the distribution system operators Liander, Enexis and Stedin launched GOPACS Auctions, an open marketplace where companies can bid on the operators’ demand for flexible capacity.

Three separate pieces of energy-sector news, you might think, with little bearing on stakeholder and environmental management. We see it differently. Together they bring into view something that has largely stayed out of sight: grid expansion has a price, that price lands on the energy bills of the same people who live next to the new substation, and the way the grid is used is becoming part of the solution. That changes the conversation grid operators and stakeholder managers have with local communities.

What is going up, and why

The differences between operators are considerable. According to an overview by comparison site Keuze.nl based on the proposals, total network charges for a standard household connection rise by just over 163 euros (22 percent) at Stedin, by 134 euros (18 percent) at Liander and by 122 euros (16 percent) at Enexis. At the smaller operators Coteq and Westland the increase is limited to 58 and 11 euros respectively.

The ACM points to two causes. For electricity, it is investment in the congested grid: new cables, distribution substations and high-voltage substations. For gas, the opposite applies: consumption is falling, so the fixed costs of the gas network are spread over fewer and fewer connections. Enexis also points to higher charges from TenneT, the national transmission system operator, which feed through into regional tariffs. The ACM stresses that it only allows operators to recover efficient costs. Stakeholders can respond until 21 October; the decision follows at the end of November.

One point matters for the interpretation: this is not a one-off spike. The operators’ investment plans run well beyond 2030, and the costs are recovered through tariffs over decades. Anyone preparing a substation or cable route today is helping to set the tariffs of the coming decades.

From need and justification to who pays

In stakeholder engagement on grid projects, the conversation has so far centred on location and disruption. Why here, why so big, why not underground, what will I notice during construction. Costs remained abstract: the grid was paid for by “the grid operator”, and the grid operator is a company.

That abstraction does not survive an annual statement that goes up by 20 percent, with the operator itself explaining that this is due to the new substations. We expect this to surface at information evenings and in formal objections, in two forms. The first: “I am paying for this substation and all I get is the nuisance.” The second, more subtle: “If it is that expensive, why choose this option rather than the cheaper one?” Or the reverse: “Why not underground, I am paying for it anyway.”

Both questions are legitimate, and both call for an answer that grid operators often do not have ready. The options appraisal should therefore include an explanation that residents can follow: what does this choice cost, how is that cost distributed, and why is this the responsible option. That is not a financial detail; it is part of the legitimacy of the decision. In the WarmtelinQ case, the Council of State already showed that a traceable options appraisal is the best defence, as we discussed in our analysis of objections to grid expansion. That traceability now needs to cover the cost side as well.

Time-of-use tariffs: residents as part of the grid

The second announcement goes beyond the size of the bill. From 1 January 2029, 67 percent of the transport tariff for households and small businesses will depend on how much electricity is used and when; 33 percent stays fixed. In the draft decision, the winter evening between 18:00 and 22:00 is the most expensive period, while transport on summer afternoons between 11:00 and 17:00 costs nothing. The grid operators expect household peak demand to fall by around 10 percent as a result, enough to connect some 700,000 additional homes without immediate reinforcement. They add that the effect is hard to predict and cannot be measured.

For stakeholder work this cuts both ways. On the positive side, it creates a concrete course of action. Until now, a resident in a congested area could do little but wait. Soon, shifting charging, washing or heating will pay off directly, both for the household budget and for capacity on the grid. That gives grid operators and municipalities a topic of conversation in which residents are not only on the receiving end of disruption, but also contribute to the solution.

The other side is distribution. According to the ACM, 53 to 64 percent of small consumers will be better off, mainly those in smaller homes and apartments. A detached house with a heat pump and an electric car may, according to the explanatory notes, pay 300 to 450 euros a year more, even if its occupants adjust their consumption. The households that have invested in the energy transition in recent years are therefore the ones facing the higher bill. The ACM maintains that a heat pump is still cheaper than a gas boiler, but the saving shrinks. For municipalities trying to move neighbourhoods off natural gas, that is a message they need to include in their own communication. Saying “switch, it pays” without mentioning it costs trust.

Flexibility as an alternative to concrete

The third announcement shows where the grid operators are also looking for solutions. On GOPACS Auctions, Liander, Enexis and Stedin now publish their demand for flexible capacity openly and by region. At launch the request totalled 496 megawatts. Congestion service providers, which offer flexibility on behalf of large businesses, can bid with how much capacity they can switch and at what fee. TenneT will join later. Meanwhile, more than 15,500 businesses and institutions are waiting for a grid connection.

Flexibility is cheaper and faster than a new substation, but it is not a substitute. It stretches capacity until reinforcement arrives, and sometimes it postpones that reinforcement. For local communities, this has consequences that receive little attention so far. A battery or a switchable installation on a business park is also a physical object, with noise, fire safety questions and a place in the local spatial plan. And if flexibility postpones a planned expansion, the schedule previously communicated to the community changes. That deserves the same care as any other postponed project.

What this asks of grid operators and stakeholder managers

Taken together, these developments turn the electricity grid into something citizens encounter in three ways: as neighbours of a substation, as payers of the bill and as users who can change their behaviour. Until now those three roles have been served through separate channels. The project team talks about the substation, the tariffs department about the bill, and communication about smart use runs through national campaigns.

We do not think that separation can hold. A resident attending an information evening about a new medium-voltage substation has also read the letter about higher network charges that week. Anyone who only wants to discuss the façade design will miss the conversation that is actually taking place. In practice this means:

Include the cost side in the options appraisal and in how it is communicated. Not down to the euro per household, but in a way that makes the choice between a more expensive and a cheaper option explainable.
Be honest about distribution. Not everyone gains from time-of-use tariffs. Keeping quiet about that comes back later as an accusation.
Use the course of action. Time-of-use tariffs and local flexibility give residents and businesses in congested areas something to do. That is worth more than another explanation of the waiting list.
Treat flexibility as a stakeholder issue. Batteries and switchable installations have a physical footprint, and flexibility contracts can shift the timing of reinforcement. Both belong in the stakeholder management plan.

Conclusion

Grid expansion has always been expensive, but the bill stayed at a distance. With the tariff proposals for 2027, that bill becomes visible at household level, and with time-of-use tariffs and the flexibility market, use of the grid becomes a shared responsibility. That does not make the conversation with communities easier, but it does make it more honest. Grid operators that put the costs and their distribution on the table themselves, before residents ask, keep control of that conversation. Those who wait until the question is asked at an information evening will be defending rather than explaining.