PGIQ Rating v2 (reliability-adjusted) · as of June 2026
4

🇳🇱 Netherlands

Possible, but expect friction, and access is getting harder Minor flags found
Tier 4 Constrained · Composite 38/100, #74 of 79 markets (fundamentals 41 minus a reliability dock) · Outlook Negative · High confidence · how we score

Amsterdam is a major hub, but the connection-queue crisis (14,000-plus businesses waiting, regions full for the decade) is the binding constraint. The access gate, not power, decides it.

Source on the connection-wait figures above: Dutch grid congestion, NL Times
See live grid data →
One market,
four reads
BuildTier 4Siting ratingSellGrade COfftakePlanRisingLoad pressureMonitorWatchGrid strength
The same market, four decisions. Open any lens to see this market ranked against the rest.
Time to energize · file to power
~96 mo
File a large load today, powered ~2034. Typical range 82 to 110 months, measured.
End-to-end wait for a large new load, from initial submission to full firm energization of the nominated MW. Earlier milestones (initial, phased, temporary or conditional energization) are reported separately. A typical case, not a firm quote. · Source: Parliamentary letter on grid congestion, Stibbe (Feb 2026) · Compare markets →
The same market, read four ways

Netherlands is a limited market to sell power into

Grade C (Limited)
Offtake score 0/100
Demand 62, build feasibility 1, combined into the score. For a seller: where buyers already pay, how tight supply is, and how feasible new build is here.
Price to beat
A 100 MW load on our standard case pays about $125/MWh delivered here. A competitive supply offer works against that level.
Waiting demand
About 38 GW in the interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid), typical wait 96 months.
For new supply
New generation sits in the same queue; the state's eight-measure push to free 5 to 10 GW by 2030 is the opening to watch.
Regulatory momentum
Adverse, stable. Courts continue to uphold the TenneT connection waiting list, over 14,000 businesses are queued, and grid-only connection is unavailable in much of the country.
Beyond the grid
Non-grid permitting is also binding: the country paused new hyperscale builds partly over land use and water, a farmers' group has appealed a Microsoft data-centre permit, and Amsterdam now makes heat reuse a mandatory condition of new data-centre permits.
Scheduled to change
By 2030: Dutch government targets freeing 5 to 10 GW of grid capacity via its eight-measure campaign (Parliamentary letter on grid congestion, Stibbe (Feb 2026)).
See it on the Offtake Grade →

Netherlands: effectively full at system level, rising demand pressure

Effectively full 16/100
System-level room, not local capacity
Local capacity at the point of connectionPublished as constrainedarea (TenneT HV layer plus regional DSO medium-voltage layer) · Netbeheer Nederland (all Dutch operators, joint publication)

The national capacity map shows offtake (afname) capacity for business connections effectively full across most of the country: red areas are full with new connections placed on a waiting list, orange areas carry a pre-announcement of congestion. This is a published operator position, not our estimate.

How to check for your site: Look up the specific postcode area on the capaciteitskaart before assuming any connection is available; then request a transport-capacity assessment from the operator.

Source: Capaciteitskaart, Netbeheer Nederland. An operator publishing capacity is not the same as us having checked your bus.
Two reads for a grid planner: how much room the system as a whole looks to have (Effectively full), and how hard demand is already pushing (Rising). The first is a market-level estimate from connection ease, forward adequacy and reliability margin. It is not local deliverability. Local capacity for this market IS addressed below, from an operator publication. Confirm local capacity with the utility before relying on it.
Large-load connection queue
38 GW requested; about 30.4 GW likely to reach operation after historical withdrawal. The gap is speculative pipeline. This counts loads waiting to draw power.
Large-load queue
About 38 GW of large-load requests as of February 2026. A request pipeline, not approved load.
Demand growth
Fast load growth in our read, the pull on your system.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged for a large new load.
Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

Grid Risk Annex BETA

Watch
Needs structuring or mitigants · grid strength 52/100
A cited, dated grid-risk read on Netherlands for a capital provider, the banks and private-credit lenders, infrastructure funds and insurers holding or underwriting a power or data-centre exposure here. Drop it into a credit memo and watch each factor over the life of the exposure.
Read it against your asset. For a load asset (Buy), weight connection access and energization timing. For a generation or offtake asset (Sell), weight offtake demand, curtailment (when a plant is told to stop feeding the grid) and cost realisation. For a grid or transmission asset (Move), weight load-pipeline reality and buildout risk.
Rating and track record
PGIQ Tier 4 Constrained, outlook Negative, High confidence. Scored on a public, dated, falsifiable record you can cite in a credit memo.
Delivery reliability
Minor flags found in the bulk and local outage record we reviewed.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged.
Cost certainty
Recurring cost about $125/MWh (band $108 to $150) for the standard 100 MW case, basis triangulated. Excludes connection capital.
Regulatory / stroke-of-pen
Adverse, stable. Courts continue to uphold the TenneT connection waiting list, over 14,000 businesses are queued, and grid-only connection is unavailable in much of the country.
Execution risk
38 GW in the large-load queue, about 20% historically withdrawn, the risk the project or load actually energizes on time.
Ongoing monitor
Track this market's rating actions and the Global Power Index as a covenant-style monitor over the life of the exposure.
Monitoring plan
Covenant-style triggers to watch over the life of the exposure: a change in the PGIQ rating or outlook; a dated regulatory move (stroke-of-pen risk); a capacity-auction or cost-band shift; a forward firm-supply adequacy warning; and a rise in queue drop-out or connection friction. Track them on this market page and the Global Power Index, or as Analyst Desk alerts.
Sources: Dutch grid congestion, NL Times · IDC · DCD
This is a directional grid-risk screen, not a credit rating, and not investment, engineering or procurement advice.
The formatted, cited Grid Risk Annex export is an Analyst Desk feature.See the Grid Exposure Monitor →

Regulatory momentum

The regulatory and permitting environment is increasingly the binding variable for a new large load.
Adverse→ stable

Why: Courts continue to uphold the TenneT connection waiting list, over 14,000 businesses are queued, and grid-only connection is unavailable in much of the country.

What would change the read: The government's eight-measure campaign actually freeing 5 to 10 GW of capacity by 2030.

For new supply: New generation sits in the same queue; the state's eight-measure push to free 5 to 10 GW by 2030 is the opening to watch.

Beyond the grid: Non-grid permitting is also binding: the country paused new hyperscale builds partly over land use and water, a farmers' group has appealed a Microsoft data-centre permit, and Amsterdam now makes heat reuse a mandatory condition of new data-centre permits. IDC DCD

The five pillars behind the tier

A
A
C
M
C
The pillar signature: Access, Availability, Cost, Momentum, Carbon, taller is stronger. The same shape repeats across every market so peers compare at a glance.
Access30%25

Acute access crisis: 14,000-plus waiting, quoted waits up to 10 years, whole regions full for the decade.

Availability25%40

Tight availability on a congested grid.

Cost25%40

High cost.

Momentum15%70

High momentum (Amsterdam FLAP-D), but gated.

Carbon5%52

Moderate carbon (~330 g).

Default weights, which lean toward cost and access rather than carbon: Access 30 · Availability 25 · Cost 25 · Momentum 15 · Carbon 5. Momentum reflects the data-center build already underway, not just stated intentions.
Seller view: Read these the other way: momentum is your customer pipeline, cost is your revenue ceiling, and access is how hard it is to build and sell here, not only to connect.

Reliability overlay

Reliability adjustment: the five-pillar score of 41 is reduced to 38, a deduction of 3 points, reflecting the delivery-reliability and firm-supply risks flagged below. Reliability is reported as five separate layers, never as one combined label, because they answer different questions and a strong answer on one does not cover a gap in another: what has actually failed on the bulk system, what a forward assessment expects of firm supply, how the local network performs, what your contract actually promises, and what your site is designed to ride through. Any one of them can cap the tier.

Historical bulk-system performance: No reliability flags found

Delivery reliability on the existing grid is good; the binding problem is connection access, not outages.

measured

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Average customer interruption (SAIDI) of 23.9 minutes per year in 2024, excluding major event days as filed.

measured · Netbeheer Nederland reliability 2024

Role not yet declared. We have not recorded whether this is one operator’s filing or an average across several, so read it as context until we do. national average across Dutch DSOs. It is a territory-wide history and is silent on: performance at a specific substation or feeder; transmission-level service, which is a different product from distribution service; the industrial or large-load customer class specifically; N-1 or other redundancy architecture at the supplying substation; contractual curtailment rights the utility may hold over the load; power quality and momentary interruptions, which this metric excludes by construction; on-site UPS, storage or generation; forward adequacy: it is a record of what happened, not a forecast.

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): Adequacy flagged

Severe grid congestion: TenneT's offtake waiting list runs to roughly 38 GW across 212 requests, new large loads cannot connect in much of the country, and operators warn of local overloading from 2026. The connection-access dimension is already in the Access pillar; this flags the delivery-expansion and overload risk.

What this means: A large new load faces occasional exposure here. Monitor conditions and keep a contingency plan.

assessed · Netherlands grid congestion (RAP)

Contractual service terms: not assessed

We have not compiled what firm service actually promises here: whether it is firm, non-firm or interruptible, the conditions under which you can be curtailed, the redundancy required of you, and the transfer time behind any N-1 commitment. Treat this as an open diligence item, not as an indication that service is firm.

Ask the utility for the tariff or service agreement terms before relying on firm supply.

Designed site resilience: not applicable at market level

Utility feeds, UPS, storage, on-site generation, islanding, black start and the residual energy you still expect to lose are properties of a specific site design, not of a market. This layer only exists once there is a site, and we never assert it for you.

Confidence: High. Each input is labelled as measured, modelled, or drawn from a specific event, and is framed as a risk to a prospective large new load, not as a verdict on any utility or grid operator. Forward adequacy is an assessment of what is expected, not a measurement of what has happened; it is a forecast and is labelled as one.
Seller view: Tight forward capacity (firm supply promised for future years) is scarcity that firm generation and storage get paid for; an adequacy flag is a demand signal for new supply, not only a risk to a load.

Supply relief outlook

Will the power crunch ease before your load energizes? This nets the demand racing for capacity against the new supply likely to arrive and the old supply leaving. A cross-side read, using the same data a seller sees the other way.
Balanced
Demand pressure
Fast load growth competing for the same capacity.
Competing demand in the queue
About 30.4 GW of the large-load queue is likely to proceed after historical withdrawal. This is demand competing for capacity, not new supply.
Can new supply arrive
New generation sits in the same queue; the state's eight-measure push to free 5 to 10 GW by 2030 is the opening to watch.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged.

What this means: Supply and demand look broadly balanced; the outcome hinges on the drivers below.

Reliability metrics

Delivery reliability (measured)

The average customer loses about 23.9 minutes of power per year (2024). This is the standard regulator outage measure (SAIDI); lower means a more reliable grid.

Source: Netbeheer Nederland reliability 2024

Hard, cited measures behind the reliability overlay above: the regulator outage series (SAIDI, measured, published with a lag) and the forward resource-adequacy assessment (a measured forecast). Framed as risk to a prospective large new load, not a verdict on any utility.

Interconnection queue

This is a large-load (demand) queue: it counts loads waiting to draw power, not generation waiting to connect. It is the closest thing to a real measure of how long a new large load waits here, but a place in it is a request, not an approval, and the withdrawal rate below is this queue's own, not a generation figure.

Active queue depth

38 GW

Typical wait

96 months

The full queue analysis for this market, which covers the share of projects that give up and leave the queue (the withdrawal rate), how much of the queue is data centers, and the sources, is available through /api/v1/queue/netherlands with a paid key. These are generation and storage queue figures: they show interconnection-system congestion, not a typical large-load connection wait.

Seller view: A deep queue is both your own time-to-revenue and a moat against competing supply; what matters is the effective supply likely to complete after withdrawal, not the headline queue.

Realized cost band

What a large electricity user pays for power here on one declared case, 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service, per megawatt-hour. Not the wholesale price and not the sticker tariff: energy plus the grid, delivery and other charges that land on the bill. It is a range, because real contracts vary, and it is labelled by how it was built.

Recurring cost, delivered

$108 to $150 per MWh

Midpoint about $125 per MWh

How this band was built

triangulated

From 2 public fragments

What builds the $125 midpoint

$75
$40
Wholesale energy$75
Network charges$40
Taxes & levies$10
All-in delivered$125 /MWh
How the $125/MWh figure is built up, component by component, for 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service. The split is our estimate; the total is the midpoint of the compiled band (triangulated). Recurring cost only: customer-funded connection capital is a separate one-off and is not included. Dutch cost is driven less by energy than by network charges and severe grid congestion; in much of the country a new large connection is not available at any price today. Anchored to published figures (EU electricity price components (Eurostat)).

Where the cost lands

$125
Low $108Midpoint $125High $150
A band, not a single price: the cheaper end is a well-structured contract on favourable terms, the higher end a less optimised one. The midpoint is our best central read.
What is in the number: Wholesale energy plus rising network charges on a grid where connection capacity is largely full.

Dutch large loads pay a mid-to-high band, driven less by energy than by network costs and severe grid congestion. In much of the country a new large connection is not available at any price today, which keeps effective costs high for those that do connect.

This market's band is free here; the ranked cross-market table with every market's precise midpoint is the Analyst Desk. See the ranked view.

Basis: triangulated from public sources, in US dollars per MWh delivered to a large high-load-factor load, excluding refundable taxes. Sources: Non-household electricity prices (Eurostat).

Seller view: This delivered price is the level a competitive supply offer must beat, and the revenue ceiling a merchant plant works against here.

Data provenance and freshness

What we hold for this market, field by field. Each tier below is assigned from the evidence actually held for that field, with provenance. A low tier means we looked and it is thin; it is not a verdict on the market.
cost: M3connection: M2reliability: M2carbon: M2regulatory: M2local capacity: M4
Against a Standardized Project Case, the binding field is connection, reliability. That is what a standardized case would turn on here; a readiness result for your own project depends on your own requirements, siting and utility, which this market-level read does not know.
Read against other uses: Discovery and monitoring: M2 · Market comparison: M2 · Project Case with a carbon requirement: M2 · Conditional site diligence: M2.
Depth is not a rating strength, a confidence score or a feasibility conclusion. An aggregate is only ever shown for a named use case, and equals the lowest tier across that use case's required fields. Definitions v1.0. See the full coverage matrix.
How solid the data behind this rating is, on two separate axes plus recency. Source reliability is how measured the numbers are, as opposed to triangulated or modelled. Coverage is how many of the decision-relevant data dimensions (reliability, connection, and cost) are compiled for this market. The two are kept apart because they answer different questions: a market can have strong sources on the little that is covered, or broad coverage that still leans on models. Neither grades the rating itself. The rating is a cited opinion, graded separately and falsifiably by the public track record and baseline measurement plan.

Source reliability

High

2 of 3 data layers measured

Coverage

Full

3 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

LayerMethodVintageFreshnessSource
PGIQ Rating opinionopinionJune 2026CurrentPGIQ methodology
Reliabilitymeasured2024FreshNetbeheer Nederland reliability 2024
Interconnection queuemeasuredend-2025 (LBNL 2026)FreshParliamentary letter on grid congestion, Stibbe (Feb 2026)
Realized costtriangulated2026FreshNon-household electricity prices (Eurostat)

Freshness reflects each layer's refresh cadence: reliability annual to three-yearly, capacity-auction and queue yearly, tariffs every year or two. The full cross-market freshness dashboard is at /data-quality.

What this market can and cannot answer yet

No market-level read closes a project case on its own, and saying only that would waste the evidence we do hold. Below is what is established, what is open, and what to do next.

What is established

  • Recurring cost band $108 to $150 per MWh, midpoint $125, basis triangulated, against the 100 MW archetype
  • Historical utility-territory delivery performance 23.9 minutes per year (2024)
  • Historical bulk-system performance (measured)
  • Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
  • Typical interconnection wait about 96 months (generation and storage queue, not a load wait)

What is open

  • Contractual service terms (would change the answer)
  • Designed site resilience

Who would actually serve you

Not compiled for this market. Identify the serving operator before relying on any figure here, because a market-level read is an average over territories.
Who runs the connection process: not yet compiled for this market. This is wayfinding rather than evidence, and its absence is a gap in our compilation, not a fact about the market.

Credible ranges today

  • Cost $108 to $150 per MWh, midpoint $125 (triangulated)
  • Schedule: interconnection queues here run about 96 months for generation and storage; a large load follows a different process and we do not hold its measured distribution

What could disqualify this market

  • Connection-queue crisis.
  • Local restrictions.

Five questions for the utility or system operator

  1. Is firm service available at 100 MW, and what curtailment rights would you retain over us once we are energised?
  2. What are the milestone dates from a complete application to full firm energisation, and which network upgrades would a 100 MW load trigger?
  3. What is your own territory's SAIDI and SAIFI for the industrial class, on which major-event standard, and what redundancy serves the candidate substation?
  4. What is the available capacity at the bulk supply point and substation that would serve this site, and what would a 100 MW request do to it?
  5. What is the all-in delivered rate for 100 MW at a 95% load factor, including demand, network and rider charges, under the tariff that would actually apply?

Documents that would advance the case

  • The applicable large-load tariff or the draft electric service agreement.
  • The interconnection or system impact study, and a specimen connection offer.
  • The utility's own reliability filing and the substation single-line diagram.
  • The area or substation capacity study, and the current queue position list.
  • The current tariff sheet with all riders, and any large-load contract terms.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • The 100-plus congestion measures and grid build clear capacity.
  • Flexibility/curtailable connections open a path.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • Congestion worsens and waits lengthen.
  • Local data-center restrictions.

Scheduled to change

Dated, already-announced events that will affect a large load sited here, in date order. These are published facts with sources, not our forecasts, and they matter most when your energization date is years out.
By 2030
Dutch government targets freeing 5 to 10 GW of grid capacity via its eight-measure campaign
Whether congestion eases enough for new large connections in the currently-full core.
Parliamentary letter on grid congestion, Stibbe (Feb 2026)

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Great Britain / Dublin (hub, gated)
Ahead
on momentum
Behind
on access

Evidence behind this rating

The real-world events that test our Tier 4 call for Netherlands: 2 support it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.

Dutch court upholds TenneT waiting list for a 70 MW data centre connection ✓ Supports the rating
Apr 2026AccessMateriality: med

A court ruled (29 Apr 2026) that TenneT may keep Goodman's 70 MW Haarlemmermeer data centre on the congestion waiting list, finding grid public interest outweighs the developer's claim; grid-only connection near Amsterdam stays effectively closed.

Source: NL Times ↗
14,000-plus businesses now on the Dutch grid-connection waiting list ✓ Supports the rating
Oct 2025AccessMateriality: high

Quoted waits reach up to 10 years and whole regions are full for the decade; connection, not generation, is the binding constraint.

Source: NL Times ↗
Cited, dated developments tagged to the pillar they bear on, and whether they support or challenge the current tier. A material item flags the market for analyst review and may drive a rating action.
🔔 Get alerts for Netherlands
Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

Jul 2026
AffirmedCourt ruling hardens the connection constraint the tier already prices in; tier holds.
Trigger: Haarlemmermeer waiting-list ruling (29 Apr 2026)
June 2026
New ratingNew rating: Tier 4 Constrained assigned.
🔒 The full time series behind Netherlands, how its score, recurring cost, and interconnection queue have moved month by month, is part of the Analyst Desk. The rating actions above are always free.
Every rating action is dated and explained, and the log is only ever added to, never edited. Reviews happen on a regular schedule and whenever a significant event occurs. "Affirmed" means we reviewed a development and the tier held; "Under review" means a significant item is being assessed and the rating could change.

Score history

How Netherlands's reliability-adjusted score and tier have moved, month by month. Part of your Analyst Desk.

Loading history…

How does Netherlands compare to the other 78 markets?

This page is our full read on Netherlands alone, and it is free. To decide where a large load should actually go, you need every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the history and alerts when your shortlist moves. That is the Analyst Desk.

With your Analyst Desk, compare Netherlands against every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the full history and shortlist alerts.

+ Add to your shortlist Recurring cost, ranked Connection friction, ranked Get the Analyst Desk →