Faster approvals for electricity projects: Council of State raises concerns over rushed plans
The Dutch government wants to speed up approvals for major electricity projects to tackle grid congestion, but the Council of State warns the plan may lack effectiveness and strain the judiciary. Citizens could face faster—but potentially flawed—decisions on infrastructure affecting their energy supply.
| Key Data | Details |
|---|---|
| Aim of Draft Decision | Accelerate procedures for electricity projects (≥21 kV) until 1 January 2032 |
| Proposed Change | Reduce appeals from two instances to one (Administrative Jurisdiction Division) |
| Decision Deadline | Six months for the Administrative Jurisdiction Division |
| Supporting Legislation | Housing and Urban Development Strengthening Bill (under Senate review) |
| Council of State’s Stance | Endorses urgency but advises against adoption without amendments |
| Concerns Raised | Unclear time savings, judicial workload, loss of error-correction benefits |
The Council of State’s Advisory Division provides independent legal advice to the Dutch government and parliament on draft legislation. Its role is to assess whether proposed laws align with legal principles, feasibility, and broader societal impact before adoption.
Happy with Openrijk?
Then support us with a small contribution
Read the full translated article below
Advice on Draft Decision on Procedural Accelerations for Electricity Projects
The Advisory Division of the Council of State issued its advice on 18 March 2026 regarding the Draft Decision on Procedural Accelerations for Electricity Projects. The advice was published on the Council of State’s website on 23 March 2026.
The draft decision
The draft decision aims to accelerate procedures for electricity projects of 21 kilovolts or more until 1 January 2032. The government seeks to expedite infrastructure development to improve electricity supply. The procedural acceleration includes reducing appeals against such decisions from two instances (a court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division) to a single instance (the Administrative Jurisdiction Division). A six-month decision deadline will also apply, and the possibility of submitting a so-called pro forma appeal will be eliminated.
Housing and Urban Development Strengthening Bill
The procedural accelerations themselves are outlined in the Housing and Urban Development Strengthening Bill, currently under review in the Senate. This bill enables the application of four procedural accelerations from the Environmental Act to certain categories of decisions, subject to specified conditions. This draft decision represents the first instance of designating decisions for such accelerations.
Addressing grid congestion is necessary and urgent
The Advisory Division endorses the need and urgency of addressing grid congestion. A swift legal process for decisions on electricity projects is essential. However, the acceleration must be properly justified, requiring the draft decision to thoroughly address all conditions set by the Housing and Urban Development Strengthening Bill for applying procedural accelerations.
Comprehensive assessment is crucial
It is important to comprehensively assess whether designating decisions is the most effective solution for achieving acceleration. Consideration must also be given to other proposed procedural accelerations within the judicial process. Additionally, alternatives for acceleration should be explored, such as in the decision-making phases preceding any potential court proceedings.
Effectiveness of procedural acceleration
The Advisory Division advises clarifying whether the draft decision will be effective. The explanatory note accompanying the draft decision does not provide a reliable estimate of the expected number of projects or resulting legal proceedings. The exact number of electricity projects to be decided on in the coming years is difficult to predict, and there is no clear indication of the expected time savings. Without further analysis of the anticipated number of decisions and appeals, it remains unclear whether the draft decision will significantly accelerate procedures.
Consequences for the judiciary
The draft decision should also address the consequences for the judiciary, including the workload of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division and potential delays in other cases. It remains uncertain whether a six-month decision deadline for the Administrative Jurisdiction Division is realistic and feasible. Furthermore, key benefits of appeals in two instances, such as error correction and the "filtering" effect of courts, will be lost.
Conclusion
The Advisory Division has raised several objections to the draft decision and advises against its adoption unless it is amended.
Read the full advice from the Advisory Division here.