The Ministry of Climate and Green Growth (KGG) has asked the PBL to reflect in a quick scan on the intended use of resources from the Climate Fund for the Multi-Year Program 2026 (MJP2026). The Climate Fund has an amount of € 15.1 billion remaining in addition to € 10.9 billion that has already been reserved or conditionally granted for earlier proposals. The political decision-making on this will take place simultaneously with the spring decision-making.
This reflection was input for the final assessment of proposals
In the autumn of 2024, ministries submitted 97 proposals with a total budget claim of € 59.7 billion: significantly more than is available. The KGG ministry used this quick scan to assess the draft evaluation and adjust it where necessary. The final MJP 2026 will therefore differ from the intended use found in this quick scan.
Proposals divided into six ‘lots’
The proposals include six ‘lots’: nuclear energy; CO2-free gas power plants; energy infrastructure; early phase scaling; greening of the industry and innovation of SMEs; and greening of the built environment.
Subsidies useful for technology and market development
Our reflection shows that many technologies in the submitted proposals have an unprofitable top compared to non-sustainable alternatives. In other proposals, investments may be profitable in the long term, but the investment costs and expected start-up losses are an obstacle. Therefore, market parties will not invest in them without financial support. In these cases, subsidies can be useful and prevent internationally operating companies from leaving the Netherlands or households and SMEs from facing high costs. In all proposals where this is relevant, it is made plausible that regulation and pricing can ensure sufficient market demand for the - currently more expensive - sustainable products in the long term. However, PBL could not assess whether that term would seamlessly align with the end of the subsidy period in all cases.
Some rejected proposals seem useful and necessary
The total claim of the proposals was much larger than the available budget. Some proposals did not receive allocation or reservation solely due to the limited budget, even though they sometimes do stimulate technologies that are necessary for climate neutrality in 2050 according to the National Energy System Plan (NPE) and cannot be postponed. This concerns nine proposals including Development of a transport network for hydrogen; Scaling up new industry and various proposals for the built environment. The total claim of these proposals is approximately € 7.5 billion.
Budget is limited, but some flexibility seems possible
A part of that € 7.5 billion could become available by reallocating budget from five proposals with a total claim of € 4.6 billion, which have received an allocation or reservation but are not expected to be effective for a part. In ‘CO2-free gas power plants’, ‘electrolysis, onshore: 500-1,000’ and ‘de-risk hydrogen caverns 5-8’, PBL expects that the funds allocated for these may not be fully utilized, in the case of ‘red diesel’ we think that those may not need to be fully spent in a different configuration, and in the case of ‘IKC 2025’, PBL believes that the funds can be spent more effectively on, for example, ‘scaling up new industry’.
Subsidy for financing electricity grid too large for Climate Fund
A large part of the total financial claim of the proposals is accounted for by the proposal ‘Subsidy for financing electricity grid’ (€ 26 billion). In this quick scan, PBL finds that this budget claim is so large that it cannot be financed from the Climate Fund, while the proposal is undoubtedly useful. The question of how the high-voltage grid should be financed is addressed in the IBO Financing Electricity Infrastructure.
Plausibility assessment is separate from efficiency
For each proposal, PBL has assessed whether the claimed CO2 reduction is plausible at request. We attribute ‘no independent effect’ to many proposals or give the predicates ‘not plausible’, ‘plausible if’ or ‘not verifiable’. It is important to emphasize that the absence of the predicate ‘plausible’ does not mean that a proposal would be inefficient or irresponsible. For example, energy infrastructure has no independent effect, but it is absolutely a necessary condition for the energy transition. Additionally, proposals in which the CO2 reduction may be overestimated can still be meaningful and responsible.
Authors
Specifications
- Publication title
- Reflectie op voorstellen voor de inzet van middelen uit het Klimaatfonds in het MJP 2026
- Publication subtitle
- Een quickscan
- Publication date
- 25 april 2025
- Publication type
- Report
- Number of pages
- 121
- Publication language
- Dutch
- Product number
- 5841