Investors see opportunities in battery storage, but Dutch regulations are holding back projects

Investors view battery storage as a rapidly growing and widely accepted investment category. However, too few Dutch projects are reaching the financing phase. This is evident from the Energy Storage Financial Market Survey 2026 by Energy Storage NL (ESNL), based on interviews with eleven financiers and a quantitative analysis. The obstacles do not lie in the technology, but in uncertain revenues, high and unpredictable grid costs, and limited transmission reliability. ESNL is therefore calling for conditions that allow developers and financiers to calculate the returns on their investments. Noa van der Valk, project manager for Financial Integration at ESNL, and Arendo Schreurs, director of ESNL, spoke with Energeia about the market research. Their explanations are cited in this article.

Adjust the net rates to reflect the role of energy storage

ESNL advocates for lower and more predictable grid costs so that battery projects can operate independently. The organization is calling for structural framework conditions, not subsidies. “Subsidies work until they run out; instead, you need to create a market where BESS can operate independently,” says Arendo Schreurs, director of Energy Storage NL, in a statement to Energeia. That predictability gives financiers and developers more certainty when making investment decisions.

ESNL prefers a separate category for energy storage within the grid tariffs. If that is not feasible, the organization wants storage to be treated as a producer for the purposes of the grid tariffs. After all, a battery delivers electricity generated earlier from wind and solar power to the grid at a later, desired time. This ‘deferred delivery’ should then fall under the feed-in tariff that the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is developing for large electricity producers.

Market research reveals financial challenges

The study focused on large-scale battery storage systems, also known as battery energy storage systems (BESS). ESNL combined interviews with eleven financiers with a quantitative analysis of standalone battery projects with their own grid connection. Financiers now consider lithium-ion technology to be proven. In their assessment, they primarily look at predictable cash flows, creditworthy contracting parties, and calculable transmission conditions. Other factors that are taken into account include an experienced developer and optimizer, the quality of contracts, and access to various revenue markets.

Investors expect strong growth in battery storage toward 2030 due to increased wind and solar energy, electrification, negative electricity prices, and grid congestion. However, this growth does not automatically make projects financially viable. Revenues from various energy markets are shifting, and some markets are becoming saturated. Projects therefore cannot rely on a single revenue source. According to the study, combining revenues from multiple markets—also known as “revenue stacking”—and long-term contracts are essential.

Most revenue models are not financially viable

The quantitative analysis compared various revenue models. In the merchant model, the owner operates the battery itself in various energy markets. Under a tolling agreement, an energy company pays a fixed fee for the use of the storage capacity. For both models, ESNL also examined the impact of a time-dependent transmission right (TDTR) on feasibility.

Only a tolling agreement combined with TDTR can, in theory, yield a viable business case in some cases. However, this would require a very high fee, which market participants consider unrealistic. According to the analysis, merchant projects are not financially viable either with or without TDTR. Tolling without TDTR is even loss-making.

Successful projects do not guarantee sufficient storage capacity

Individual successful projects do not guarantee that sufficient storage capacity will be added, Schreurs warns in his explanation to Energeia. For example, a project may be feasible because of a high payment from a grid operator. A supplier or customer who places a high value on the battery could also make a project possible. “But the fact that projects are occasionally connected to the grid does not mean that there will be enough storage in the system. Our study shows that this is not a given,” says Schreurs.

Energeia cites three major projects that have been successfully financed: the Leopard battery by GIGA Storage in Delfzijl, the Sirius battery by Return in Winschoten, and the Mufasa battery by Lion Storage in Vlissingen. According to Noa van der Valk, Financial Integration Project Manager at Energy Storage NL, each of these projects has a specific business case. “You can’t simply extrapolate that success to the future or to other projects,” she says.

Rising grid rates are putting further pressure on the project’s financial viability. Discussions with financiers took place before it became clear in September that grid rates would rise by an average of approximately 20% in 2027. The business case was already under pressure at that time. The announced increase exacerbates that challenge.

Even projects currently under construction that are set to come online in the coming years could run into problems later on. Schreurs warns that the expected rate increases could drive costs so high during the 2032–2034 period that projects may have to be taken offline again.

Financially Viable Storage as a Prerequisite for the Energy System

The National Energy System Plan (NPE) is based on extensive electrification and increased wind and solar energy. To balance supply and demand, greater flexibility and energy storage are needed. The NPE aims for 28 GW of battery capacity by 2040, with a storage capacity of 110 GWh. To achieve this storage capacity, battery projects must also be financially viable.

ESNL is therefore calling on the government and grid operators to establish a predictable, multi-year path for grid tariffs. The organization is also calling for more widely available, standardized transmission and congestion contracts, as well as accessible grid data. In addition, long-term revenue streams are needed that can support multiple projects, for example through congestion contracts, flex tenders, and the capacity mechanism. The goal, therefore, goes beyond lower grid costs alone. Financiers must be able to factor in revenue, costs, and transmission conditions to assess whether a project can cover interest and principal payments.

Download the 2026 Energy Storage Financial Market Research Report