Congestion management for closed distribution systems: must you take part?

Yes, the operator of a closed distribution system must take part in congestion management. On 2 June 2026 the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, CBb) upheld that obligation, but with an important limit: it applies only as far as a contribution is factually possible and compatible with the safe operation of the private grid (ECLI:NL:CBB:2026:234).

The ruling matters to you if you run an internal electricity grid on a business park, industrial estate, port area or chemical cluster. The Tribunal confirmed that the Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument en Markt, ACM) could extend the congestion management rules to closed distribution systems. The obligation is addressed only to you as the operator, in your role as a consumer on the public grid, while the flexibility the grid operator wants is held by the companies connected to your grid.

What is a closed distribution system?

A closed distribution system (gesloten distributiesysteem) is a private electricity grid on a defined site, such as an industrial estate, a port or chemical complex or a business park. The companies on the site are connected to the operator’s internal grid, and the site draws electricity from the public grid at one or more connection points.

Since 1 January 2026 the Energiewet has replaced the Elektriciteitswet 1998 and the Gaswet. Where the old act worked with an exemption, the ACM now recognises a closed system (gesloten systeem) under Article 3.7 of the Energiewet. The CBb ruling was given under the old rules: it tests the Elektriciteitswet 1998 and the Netcode elektriciteit as they stood before 2026.

The conditions for closed status follow the European Electricity Directive. The processes of the users on the site must be integrated for specific technical or safety reasons, or the system must mainly distribute electricity for the owner’s own use, and it should not supply household customers apart from a limited number linked to the site. Recognition matters because a closed system is exempt from several obligations that bind public grid operators, including parts of the tariff rules and the electricity code.

What does congestion management require?

The grid operator pays grid users to draw or feed in less than their contract allows at busy times, so that scarce transport capacity can be shared until the grid is reinforced. The amended Netcode elektriciteit turned this from a voluntary market into a duty.

Consumers with more than 60 MW of contracted transport capacity must always offer their flexible capacity (Article 9.1(3) Netcode). In a congestion area, the duty can also apply to consumers above 1 MW, with the grid operator setting the exact threshold (Article 9.1(4) Netcode). A failure to offer, after a written reminder and a period to remedy it, leads to a financial consequence:

• for redispatch, €1.25 per MW of contracted transport capacity for each imbalance settlement period in which the obligation is not met (Article 9.1g(2) Netcode);
• for capacity limitation, €120 per MW per day (Article 9.1h(2) Netcode).

Neither amount is due in a case of force majeure (overmacht). The ACM sets these amounts in the code, so check the version that currently applies to you. For a closed system the difficulty is obvious: you own cables, switchgear and transformers, not the processes that can be turned up or down.

What was the dispute before the CBb about?

The industry association VEMW challenged two ACM code decisions that extended congestion management to closed distribution systems: the decisions of 8 February 2024 (Staatscourant 2024, 4917) and 22 August 2024 (Staatscourant 2024, 27562). They followed proposals by the joint grid operators through Netbeheer Nederland.

Under the amended code, the operator of a closed system is treated as a consumer at its connection to the public grid and must facilitate its connected parties in making voluntary bids of flexibility (Article 5.10 Netcode). VEMW raised three grounds: the rules were outside the ACM’s powers because they regulated the private relationship between operator and connected parties; the obligation could not be performed because the operator has no controllable assets of its own; and the code lacked a clear exemption protecting the operator’s duty to keep its own grid safe.

What did the Tribunal decide on 2 June 2026?

The CBb dismissed the appeal, so both code decisions stand. The reasoning, however, narrows the obligation considerably on three points.

Scope. The obligations in Article 5.10 Netcode are addressed exclusively to the operator in its role as a consumer on the public grid. The connected companies cannot be compelled by the code to offer anything, so the special position of the closed system stays intact. The Tribunal found the rules compatible with the ACM’s power under Article 31 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998.

Workability. There is no absolute duty to deliver flexible capacity. Where a contribution is not possible, or only partly, you must inform the grid operator in writing and with reasons (Article 9.1f(4) Netcode). Where impossibility is shown, no financial consequence attaches.

Safety. The core task of any system operator is to operate its grid safely and reliably, and that task comes first. You do not have to offer flexible capacity where the safety of your own grid stands in the way, even if connected companies would be willing, provided you substantiate this in writing.

What does the ruling mean in your favour?

The obligation is one of effort within the bounds of what is possible, not one of result. If you genuinely tried to arrange flexibility with your connected parties and failed, you are not in breach merely because no capacity was offered.

The connected companies acquire no duty from the code; any duty must be created by contract, in the connection and transport agreements or the site regulations. And both the impossibility and the safety exception depend on your written substantiation under Article 9.1f(4) Netcode, given in time. If you simply do not respond to a request from the grid operator, you have no defence, whatever the underlying facts.

What should you check as a closed system operator?

Map the flexibility that actually exists on your site, then review your contracts and internal procedures. Without that picture you cannot say anything credible to the grid operator, the ACM or a court.

• Which connected companies have processes that can be shifted in time, or their own generation, storage or emergency capacity.
• Whether your internal connection and transport agreements give you a contractual basis to call on their flexibility.
• How congestion management payments are shared and who bears any financial consequence under Articles 9.1g and 9.1h Netcode.
• How much notice a company gets before it is asked to reduce, and what happens when two are asked at once.
• Who receives a request from the grid operator, who assesses it on technical grounds and who signs the written response.
• How your recognition now stands under Article 3.7 of the Energiewet, especially if the grid has grown or taken on new users.

What should you check as a company connected to a closed system?

The code imposes nothing on you directly, but your operator will look to you for flexibility. Your obligations follow only from your contract with the operator.

• Whether your connection and transport agreement or the site regulations oblige you to reduce consumption on request.
• What share of the congestion management payment you receive for the flexibility you provide.
• Whether the operator can pass on to you a financial consequence of €1.25 or €120 per MW, and on what conditions.
• Which of your processes can safely be shifted, and which cannot because of continuous operation or safety.
• What notice period and maximum duration apply to a request to reduce.

How does this fit the wider congestion picture?

The regulator is drawing more types of grid user into solving congestion instead of waiting for grid reinforcement. Alongside the congestion management obligation, the code provides for non-firm transport rights: time-bound contracts give capacity only outside agreed peak hours, and under a capacity limitation contract you accept a cap in return for access you could not otherwise obtain. For a site that cannot get a heavier connection, those instruments are often the only route to expansion.

What can we do for you with congestion management for your closed system?

Congestion management is one part of the rules for private grids; our page on energy law covers recognition, connection agreements and disputes with grid operators.

• We review your connection and transport agreements and site regulations for a contractual basis to call on flexibility.
• We draft clauses on sharing payments, passing on financial consequences, notice periods and simultaneous requests.
• We draft the written substantiation under Article 9.1f(4) Netcode when a contribution is impossible or unsafe.
• We check your recognition under Article 3.7 of the Energiewet against the current size and users of your grid.
• We represent you in disputes with the grid operator, before the ACM and in appeal proceedings before the CBb.

Summary

• The CBb upheld on 2 June 2026 that operators of closed distribution systems must take part in congestion management (ECLI:NL:CBB:2026:234).
• The obligation is addressed only to the operator as a consumer on the public grid; the connected companies are not bound by the code.
• If a contribution is factually impossible, or would endanger the safety of your grid, you must explain this to the grid operator in writing and with reasons.
• Where impossibility is shown, or in a case of force majeure, no financial consequence is due.
• Arrange now: an inventory of flexibility on site, contract terms with your connected parties, and a clear internal reporting line.

Frequently asked questions