The Netherlands

Today, with almost 200 data centres – including two hyperscale centres – the Netherlands is one of Europe's leading co-location data centre hubs. Between 2021 and 2023, installed capacity expanded from 1,489 MW to 1,638 MW. Despite its growth, the sector increasingly faces constraints: most notably, spatial scarcity and grid congestion. Since 1 January 2024, a nationwide restriction exists for new hyperscale data centres exceeding 10 hectares and requiring a connection capacity of 70 MW or more, with exceptions applying only in a small number of government-designated locations. Despite these current practical restrictions, the Dutch government has expressed strong support for AI infrastructure development, including market-funded AI gigafactories, and has signalled its intention to encourage private capital and streamline the applicable permitting framework. Therefore, the long-term demand fundamentals – digitalisation, AI adoption, and the Netherlands’ position as a European connectivity hub – remain strongly in the sector’s favour.

Key contacts

Martje de Vries Lentsch
Partner
[email protected]

Bas Boutellier
Partner
[email protected]

Jasper van Uden
Partner
[email protected]

Grid connection

Grid architecture

The Dutch Energy Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2026, represents a landmark reform in the Dutch energy sector. Its aim to alleviate grid constraints by modernising the gas and electricity market and aligning Dutch law with the EU Clean Energy Package. The act distinguishes between the high voltage transmission system, operated by TenneT (“TSO”), and the local distribution systems, operated by several distribution system operators, such as Enexis (“DSO”). The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) is the independent national regulator.

As in other European jurisdictions, the Dutch system is founded on the principle of unbundling. In practice, this means that ownership and operation of transmission and distribution network assets are not available to third parties, such as data centre developers, on a standalone basis.

Grid connection, charging, congestion and queues

System operators are in principle required to offer a grid connection within a reasonable time – as ultimately determined by the ACM – and to realise it once accepted. Where insufficient capacity is available, an operator may refuse the request until constraints are resolved, though it remains obliged to expand the grid in the meantime – such refusals are increasingly giving rise to litigation, making careful review of the associated contracts ever more important. Customers can access the electricity grid through three main routes: firstly, transmission-level connections (typically at least 110 kV, for projects of around 100 MW or more); secondly, distribution-level connections (generally no more than 66 kV, for smaller-scale projects); or thirdly, alternative private network arrangements, such as a closed distribution system or a direct line. Data centre operators are increasingly turning to alternative arrangements to mitigate congestion and secure more flexible or faster access to capacity. System operators charge customers for the realisation of new connections, typically in stages under a milestone scheme. Once a connection is in place, customers are charged periodically for its maintenance, operation, and the transport of electricity. The associated tariffs are set by the ACM on the basis of each system operator’s total allowed revenues, reflecting pooled system costs that cannot be traced to an individual customer.

Grid congestion remains the most significant obstacle to data centre development in the Netherlands. As of 2025, queues are substantial: DSO applications number approximately 14,000, representing around 9 GW of demand, whilst more than 200 TSO requests account for around 38 GW. In some regions, new or upgraded connections have been temporarily suspended pending capacity expansions, with connection times in severely congested areas reaching up to ten years. Northern regions retain more available capacity, though this advantage is gradually eroding as electrification and industrial growth accelerate.

Allocation of scarce grid capacity

In congested areas, the default first come, first served (“FCFS”) allocation model no longer applies. In its place, the ACM has established a priority framework under which priority is given to congestion alleviators, safety-critical infrastructure, and essential public services – with priority among congestion alleviators determined by objective effectiveness. Within all other categories, and between parties without priority status, capacity is allocated on an FCFS basis. Data centres do not hold independent priority status but may qualify indirectly where capacity is used exclusively for a priority-sector party through a joint application.

The priority framework is still evolving and subject to ongoing litigation, with further clarification expected in 2027.

Flexibility mechanisms

Grid access in the Netherlands is actively managed to prevent overload, with system operators relying on flexibility mechanisms that require or incentivise large users – including data centres – to adjust consumption patterns. Three principal instruments are currently in use:

Capacity steering contracts: Agreements under which users commit to reducing or increasing electricity consumption or supply depending on grid conditions, in exchange for financial compensation.
Capacity limitation contracts: A specific form of capacity steering contract under which users commit only to reducing consumption or supply at specified times in exchange for financial compensation. These are the primary tool for securing ongoing grid access at congested nodes.
Redispatch (via GOPACS): A short-term mechanism to adjust consumption or generation in near real time, operating through either voluntary participation or mandatory bids. Businesses with a connection of 60 MW or more are always required to offer flexible capacity.

Alternative transmission rights

In response to grid congestion, three types of non-firm transmission rights are available, each offering a different level of supply certainty:

Fully variable transmission right: Provides grid access only when sufficient transport capacity is available, typically confirmed one day in advance. Supply is not guaranteed and operators must be capable of absorbing interruptions at short notice.
Time-block transmission right: Grants access during predefined periods – such as off-peak or night-time hours – with no entitlement to capacity outside those windows. Offered by DSOs, this product suits operations that can be scheduled around fixed availability periods.
Time-duration transmission right: Ensures grid access for a minimum proportion of time (typically around 85%), with advance notification of unavailable periods. Offered by the TSO, this is the most operationally predictable non-firm option and is generally the most relevant for operators requiring a baseline level of supply certainty.

These variants may be combined to construct a tailored solution aligned with a data centre's operational model and flexibility requirements. Single-owner data centres are generally better placed to participate in flexibility arrangements, as they can adjust aggregate consumption without contractual constraint, particularly where operators can shift or modulate workloads such as AI training to periods of greater grid availability. Co-location data centres face greater structural complexity: the presence of multiple tenants with distinct load profiles and service level commitments limits the operator's ability to curtail or shift consumption unilaterally.

Additional policy measures

As part of the National Action Programme on Grid Congestion, additional measures are being developed to enable more efficient use of existing grid infrastructure. These include a “use-it-or-lose-it” regime – allowing system operators to reduce contracted capacity where utilisation consistently falls below the contracted threshold – and group transport agreements, which allow multiple large customers to contract and allocate capacity collectively. For larger data centre campuses or operators running multiple co-located facilities, group transport agreements may offer a practical route to securing aggregate capacity unavailable to individual applicants.

Although no sector-specific interruptibility obligations currently apply to data centres, participation in flexibility arrangements is in practice increasingly a de facto prerequisite for securing and maintaining grid access, rather than a purely optional commercial choice.

Power access and procurement

Procurement structures and legal framework

Unable to rely on timely or adequate grid access, data centre operators in the Netherlands are increasingly securing renewable energy through PPAs concluded directly with generators. Beyond providing price certainty and a guaranteed renewable supply, PPAs concluded by larger data centres can materially strengthen the investment case for new solar and wind projects by offering the long-term offtake certainty that project finance structures typically require.

A growing number of operators are also reportedly participating in grid balancing programmes – offering demand flexibility in exchange for revenue or preferential access terms – or exploring on-site generation to reduce dependence on congested grid infrastructure. Corporate PPAs, on-site generation, and grid balancing participation are increasingly viewed as complementary components of an integrated energy strategy rather than discrete alternatives. To alleviate grid congestion, some industries are also considering hydrogen as part of their broader solution to secure long-term energy supply.

Renewable procurement and certificates

The principal renewable energy certificate scheme in the Netherlands is the GO scheme, administered by VertiCer. The Dutch scheme imposes no mandatory additionality requirement, meaning GO certificates may be issued from both new and existing generation capacity. This diverges from the more demanding additionality standards increasingly embedded in voluntary corporate sustainability frameworks – including the 24/7 carbon-free energy matching methodology adopted by a number of hyperscalers – and from the broader direction of travel in EU disclosure policy.

The Dutch GO scheme complies with the European standard for guarantees of origin and operates in accordance with the standards set by the AIB, through which cross-border interoperability is facilitated.

Nuclear incentives

The Netherlands currently operates one nuclear reactor that generates electricity. However, its nuclear footprint is set to expand materially: a new state-owned entity has recently been incorporated with a mandate to develop additional nuclear generation capacity. That said, this project remains in its initial stages and it will be some considerable time before any new capacity comes online.

In parallel, certain operators are actively considering direct supply arrangements from SMR facilities, although the commercial framework governing such arrangements remains at an early stage of development.

National strategy, investment incentives, and planning

National strategy, investment policy, tax, and subsidy framework

Data centre policy in the Netherlands has evolved incrementally across a range of instruments – including spatial planning documents, economic strategy papers, and sectoral legislation – and at different levels of government. To date, these have not been consolidated into a single overarching framework. The result is a duality that operators and investors must navigate carefully:

On the one hand, data centres are recognised as a key component of the Netherlands' digital infrastructure and as playing an important role in safeguarding the country's digital open strategic autonomy. This recognition is reflected in the 2025 draft spatial planning memorandum – which sets out the spatial planning framework for the Netherlands through to 2050 and is expected to be adopted later this year – as well as in the Dutch government's broader support for AI infrastructure investment.
On the other hand, national, regional, and local authorities have in practice progressively introduced stricter regulations and policies governing data centre development, driven by concerns over energy consumption, spatial planning pressure, and environmental impact. In a number of cases, this has resulted in moratoria on the construction of new data centres, or of specific categories thereof.

These constraints are expected to persist in the short term. In the longer term, however, the demand drivers – digitalisation, AI adoption, and the Netherlands' established position as a European connectivity hub – support the expectation that the sector will continue to grow, albeit within an increasingly regulated framework.

On the fiscal and incentive side, various Dutch subsidies and tax incentives may be available for qualifying investments aimed at stimulating the use of renewable energy, reducing CO₂ emissions through amongst others improvement of efficiency rather than asset relocation, re-using residual heat, and funding research to improve upon the foregoing. The headline Dutch corporate income tax rate is 25.8%. Additional or accelerated depreciation allowances may be available for qualifying data centre investments, including related battery storage. Dutch real estate transfer taxes are a point of attention, but should not apply to the sale of an entity that owns and actively operates data centres located in the Netherlands.

Critical National Infrastructure designation

Under the current regime, multi-tenant data centres exceeding 50 MW of aggregate connection capacity are designated as “other vital providers” under the Network and Information Systems Security Act, carrying an incident reporting obligation to the National Security Centrum and, in certain circumstances, to the Minister of Economic Affairs.

The cybersecurity landscape is, however, undergoing significant reform. The Cybersecurity Act (transposing NIS2) and the Critical Entities Resilience Act (implementing the CER Directive) have both been adopted by Parliament and will enter into force on 15 August 2026. The Cybersecurity Act will supersede and expand the current framework. Data centres exceeding the medium-sized enterprise threshold and/or designated as a “critical entity” under the Critical Entities Resilience Act will be designated “essential entities”, whilst small-sized data centre entities will be designated "important entities". Both categories will be subject to a duty of care – already applicable to many operators, but extended in scope – enforced by the Dutch Authority for Digital Infrastructure. Administrative fines may be imposed on the entity for breaches of the notification requirements and the duty of care – as prescribed by NIS2 – as well as non-cooperation with the supervisory authority, or other violations. Apart from that, administrative fines of up to €25,000 may be imposed on managing directors personally for breaches of training/qualification criteria. The Critical Entities Resilience Act will operate in parallel. Once formally designated a "critical entity" by the relevant Minister, a suite of resilience obligations applies; however, providers of data centre services as defined in NIS2 are exempted from certain key obligations, including the duty of care. Operators should verify carefully whether their specific activities and designation status engage or exclude requirements under each regime.

National security and foreign investment screening

Foreign investment in Dutch data centres is subject to a sector-specific screening regime under the Telecommunications Act, operating independently of general merger control and without any turnover-based or deal-value threshold. Data centre operators – and entities holding a controlling interest in such an operator – may fall within scope; single-tenant facilities are excluded. A notification is required where a party intends to acquire “predominant control” – which includes holding at least 30% of voting rights, having the ability to appoint or dismiss more than half of the board or the supervisory board, or holding shares with statutory control rights – in a relevant operator resulting in “relevant influence” in the Dutch telecommunications sector, meaning that abuse or deliberate disruption of that operator – or any other relevant operator in which the holder or acquirer (or their group) holds or acquires predominant control – could interrupt the availability or verification of data centre services with a power capacity exceeding 50 MW (assessed at the group level), or disrupt the availability, reliability, or confidentiality of data centre services delivered to the AIVD, the Ministry of Defence, the MIVD, the NCTV, or the National Police. Multiple activities within the Dutch telecommunications sector – such as fibre networks and data centres – are aggregated when determining whether this threshold is met. A party that has already reached the threshold of relevant influence, whether through pre-existing activities or a previous transaction, need not notify further transactions.

The consequences of non-compliance are material: failure to notify may result in an administrative fine of up to €900,000. No standstill obligation applies, meaning completion before clearance is technically permissible but entirely at the parties’ own risk. A transaction completed in contravention of a prohibition decision is in principle null and void, and the Minister may additionally order unwinding, suspension of control rights, or conditional clearance requiring divestiture or restrictions on network access.

Where a transaction falls outside the scope of the Telecommunications Act, the general foreign direct investment screening framework may nonetheless apply.

Data localisation and cross-border data flows

The Netherlands imposes no general statutory data-localisation requirements, and as of May 2026, no sector-specific localisation requirements exist beyond those arising under EU legislation. The principal relevant instrument is the Dutch central government’s Rijksbreed cloudbeleid 2022, which requires government departments procuring public cloud services to conduct risk analyses addressing the geographical spread of data flows and associated security risks. In practice, this directs government and government-adjacent workloads towards EU or Netherlands-based cloud regions. Operators serving public sector clients, or entities in regulated sectors subject to equivalent data governance expectations, should factor this into their infrastructure planning and contractual positioning.

Land use classification and default consenting route

New hyperscale data centres – defined as facilities exceeding 10 hectares with an electrical connection capacity of at least 70 MW – are subject to a nationwide development prohibition under the Environmental Quality Decree. A narrow carve-out exists for Hogeland and Hollands Kroon in the north of the Netherlands, where existing hyperscale facilities may expand. Outside those designated locations, the prohibition should be treated as effectively absolute in the near term. Sub-hyperscale data centres are governed by the applicable environmental plan; a specific permit is required where a proposed development departs from it.

Additional regional and municipal policy frameworks will often apply and should be identified early in the development process. Decision-making authority rests in principle at the provincial or municipal level, including for hyperscale facilities within the designated northern municipalities.

National/fast-track consenting pathways

The Netherlands has no fast-track or nationally significant infrastructure regime for data centres, distinguishing it from several comparable European jurisdictions.

The most effective procedural tool available is the coordination scheme, which consolidates the preparation, adoption, and challenge of related decisions into a single unified procedure. This avoids sequential permitting and reduces the risk of delays arising from inconsistency between decisions. While not equivalent to a dedicated fast-track regime, the coordination scheme is the best mechanism currently available and should be considered for any project requiring multiple (environmental) permits.

Environmental regulation and sustainability

Environmental Impact Assessment

Data centres do not constitute a separate designated category under Annex V of the Environment and Planning Decree, which lists the project types requiring either a full EIA report or an EIA evaluation on the basis of their potential for significant environmental effects. An EIA obligation can nonetheless arise where a data centre project meets the thresholds or criteria set out in Annex V by virtue of its ancillary infrastructure; most commonly where emergency power generators with a total thermal capacity exceeding 300 MW are installed. A Council of State ruling in 2024 confirmed that the 300 MW threshold applies to the combined capacity of all combustion installations at a single data centre, rather than to each individual generator separately.

Where a data centre project is preceded or enabled by a plan or programme – for instance, a spatial planning instrument or zoning amendment – an EIA may also be required at the plan or programme level.

Environmental regulations

Data centres in the Netherlands are subject to the general national rules set out in the Environmental Activities Decree. The operation of a data centre supporting data traffic or data storage constitutes an environmentally harmful activity within the meaning of that Decree, engaging a suite of general environmental rules. Additional provisions may apply depending on the facility’s technical configuration – including rules on combustion, cooling installations, or large-scale energy generation – and locally established environmental rules should be identified at the planning stage.

Two permits merit particular attention. An environmental permit is required for cooling water discharge where the heat load on a surface water body exceeds 50 MW, a threshold routinely met by hyperscale and large co-location facilities. A nature permit may also be required where a project could significantly affect one of the Netherlands’ 162 Natura 2000 areas; in practice, such permits can be difficult to obtain given the country's ongoing nitrogen crisis, which continues to generate litigation and policy uncertainty at the national and local levels.

Energy efficiency: PUE and mandatory standards

PUE requirements are set at local rather than national level and may therefore vary by location. The greater Amsterdam area requires a PUE of 1.2 or below for new data centre projects. As not all authorities have defined a specific threshold, operators should verify the applicable local requirements at the site-selection stage.

With regards to energy saving obligations, pursuant to the Environmental Activities Decree and the Environmental Buildings Decree, data centres consuming 50,000 kWh or more annually must implement all energy-saving measures with a payback period of five years or less, or apply the relevant measures from the Recognised Energy Saving Measures List. Those consuming 10,000,000 kWh or more are additionally required to assess measures with a payback period of up to five years. The Recognised Measures List has attracted criticism for not being consistently suitable or cost-effective across all data centre types and configurations. An extension of the payback period to seven years is under consideration, which, if adopted, would increase the compliance burden for operators.

Operators subject to the energy-saving obligations must also report every four years on their implementation of the required measures; this information is published subject to redaction of confidential business data. Compliance can be operationally complex where operators do not control their clients’ IT infrastructure, a challenge particularly acute for co-location providers. Data centres with an installed IT capacity of at least 500 kW must additionally report annually on PUE and further performance indicators, including water use, waste heat reuse, and renewable energy consumption. Larger operators may also be subject to energy audit requirements under the EU Energy Efficiency Directive, which are not fully aligned with the domestic reporting obligation.

Heat recovery and waste heat obligations

There is currently no mandatory obligation on data centres in the Netherlands to supply waste heat to external recipients. However, certain provinces have moved ahead of the national framework: Noord-Holland, for instance, has introduced permit requirements within its Environmental Regulation requiring data centres to configure their systems to enable the transfer of waste heat to a heating company or end user. As of March 2026, 28 active waste heat projects involving data centres have been reported in the Netherlands, reflecting both commercial interest and local regulatory expectations.

The recently adopted Collective Heat Act, expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027, will empower heat companies to require waste heat producers – including data centres – to make waste heat available upon request, with associated costs regulated rather than commercially negotiated. Whilst the Act supports the integration of waste heat into district heating networks and the broader energy transition, its practical reach is constrained by a structural limitation: commercially viable supply requires geographic proximity to existing heat network infrastructure, a condition not universally met across the Netherlands. Operators assessing sites should therefore treat network infrastructure as a relevant locational factor, both for compliance purposes and in anticipation of the Act’s obligations.

Sustainability reporting

In addition to European rules on CSRD and taxonomy, most data centre operators must report on their energy savings obligations and may be subject to annual reporting requirements (see above).

No greenwashing complaints had resulted in sanctions against data centre operators by June 2026.