Opinion of the Alliander stakeholder panel
Dear reader,
This year, Alliander again invited the stakeholder panel in December to participate in reading through and reflecting on the draft version of the annual report. As panel members, we value the openness that Alliander shows towards stakeholders from different sections of society, from financial institutions and industry to the scientific community, social organisations and representatives of households in energy poverty.
The round table discussion focused not only on the annual report, but also on the question of what Alliander’s role is – and should be – in an energy system undergoing fundamental change.
The Netherlands and Alliander in motion
The Netherlands is in a period of profound social and economic change. The energy transition is no longer a gradual shift, and is instead developing into a systematic transformation with major consequences for people, businesses and public organisations. Network congestion is no longer a temporary bottleneck, but a structural fact with increasing impacts on society. Businesses are unable to expand, homes are not being connected in good time and households face uncertainty about affordability and reliability.
In these circumstances, rather than merely putting policy into effect, Alliander acts as a key player in the functioning of society. That calls for a fundamental change to how we look at things and get things done, not only from a technical or operational standpoint, but also in terms of society and communication. The panel can see that Alliander is working hard at getting work done, communicating and becoming more agile. At the same time, it became clear in the discussion that a fourth element needs to be added: acceptance. That means accepting that scarcity has become an integral part of the energy system and that choices must inevitably be made. The panel finds that the annual report could make this shift more visible.
Image and role: from compliance to profile
Alliander’s annual report meets high standards. It is thorough, complete and highly compliant with laws and regulations, including the ESRS. At the same time, the report prompted the panel to ask, what does Alliander really stand for now?
To the reader, Alliander’s role sometimes remains implicit. The report shows what Alliander does, but is less clear about why or what drives it. This creates an image of an organisation that mainly responds to rules and requirements, whereas the reality of our society demands direction, clarity and conviction. The panel believes there is space for a more explicit profile, in which Alliander makes clear where its own responsibilities begin and end, and where it is up to other parties to act. In other words, Alliander needs to stake out its terrain – and have the courage to take a position, without losing its links to other parties in the sector.
Transparency and fairness
The panel appreciates the openness in the report, but pleads for a next step: transparency that might also be somewhat uncomfortable. Transparency about what can be done, but also about what can’t. Fairness should play an important role in this. From a variety of perspectives – industry, construction, financial sector and social organisations – the panel finds that the current energy system does not work fairly in practice. It is unfair on struggling businesses, but also on households on the bottom rung of society. In the panel’s view, the assumption of ‘equal terms’ no longer matches up to reality.
A tighter focus on customers is therefore needed, with a view to concrete action. What can customers expect? When can they expect it, and when not? Who bears the consequences of scarcity? Is a ‘social network tariff’ possible? The panel sees an important role in this regard for Alliander, not only in practical terms, but also in putting these questions on the agenda. Politics follows the market.
Network congestion as a driver of change
Network congestion is the constant underlying theme of the discussion. Rather than just viewing congestion as a problem, the panel believes it is also a catalyst for change. It pushes us towards new choices, new types of contracts, more collaboration and different ways of dealing with reliability and availability.
In view of this, the panel also discussed the inherent tension between reliability and agility. For households, reliability is largely non-negotiable, whereas increased variation and uncertainty might be acceptable for some parts of the business market. The panel appreciates the fact that Alliander raises these dilemmas, but believes there is scope to clarify where differentiation is possible – and where it isn’t.
Reflections on the dilemmas
The panel recognises the dilemmas raised in the annual report and appreciates the critical appraisal of Alliander’s own organisation, particularly as regards customer focus. At the same time, we find that the dilemmas are rather cautiously formulated and that the extent to which Alliander itself is responsible for them is not always stated out loud. In the panel’s view, the supposed trade-off between reliability and availability of the energy supply is a false dilemma. At any rate, we are far from having exhausted the options that exist to resolve congestion.
We also feel that one crucial dilemma is missing from the report: the tension between individual liberties and the collective interest in a safe and reliable energy system. Will we have to limit individual freedoms to prevent a failure of the system as a whole? In the current situation, the answer often appears to be 'no'. For instance, the network operator is currently unable to make use of detailed consumption data provided by smart meters, even though that information could be crucial to better network management and limiting risk. At the same time, businesses can reserve large capacities that remain unused and objections can be raised against virtually any infrastructural decision.
The panel underlines the importance of consultation and privacy, but also points out that a system in which individual interests always prevail might eventually break down.
Recommendations to Alliander for the annual report
Based on the discussions held, the stakeholder panel makes the following recommendations:
Make Alliander’s role more explicit. Show more clearly what Alliander stands for, what choices it is making and where the limits lie of its own sphere of responsibility and of what it can do.
Say what other parties in society can do to help shape the transition.
Adopt a clear stance. Be bolder in the report, even if this means saying that not all ambitions are fully achievable at the current time. Be more explicit about making proposals.
Link transparency to fairness. Be honest about who bears the costs and benefits, and offer concrete prospects for action.
Raise uncertainty explicitly as a social issue. Include the dilemma between individual and collective interests in the report.
Communicate more forcefully in the annual report, giving more orientation to the reader and making clearer choices about what is reported and how.
Provide more insight into IT resilience, especially as regards dependency on the cloud.
A final word
The stakeholder panel wishes to express its appreciation of the open dialogue and high standard of reporting. Precisely because Alliander plays a central role in an energy system under pressure, we view the annual report as an important instrument for giving traction to social debate. We hope that our reflections will help to give more depth, clarity and recognisability to Alliander’s profile.
On behalf of the stakeholder panel,
Onno Dwars - CEO, Ballast Nedam Development
Bert Hubert - digital security researcher, adviser and publicist
Dick Ligthart – Green Bonds and sustainable finance expert, ABN AMRO Bank
Laetitia Ouillet - heating transition/energy market specialist; Partner, eRiskGroup
Marije Ruysch-Koster – Director, Energiebank, Arnhem region
Hanneke van de Vijfeijke - Programme Manager for Circularity & Nature, Royal BAM group
Wietse Venema - Director, Ernon MVO, Bedrijventerreinaanpak.nl
The stakeholder panel
The stakeholder panel that assists us with the annual report forms part of our ongoing stakeholder dialogue. We shared a draft version of the 2025 annual report with the panel members in December. It was discussed during an online meeting held on 17 December 2025, attended by the CFO Walter Bien and the CTO Joris de Groot. The feedback was used to improve this report, and will also serve to further enhance the quality of our reporting. The stakeholder panel is independent. Perhaps you, too, would like to talk to us about the annual report or the issues confronting Alliander. We are open to dialogue and also regularly organise roundtable sessions with our stakeholders. Please contact us on communicatie@alliander.com (new window).
Response from the Management Board
The Management Board thanks the stakeholder panel for their acute analysis and their open reflections on our social mission and the evolution of our annual report. In a time of structural scarcity, we remain transparent, proactively seek collaboration and are helping to steer public debate on a fair and reliable energy transition. We will be pleased to continue this dialogue, including during the preparation of the next annual report.
We have carefully considered the recommendations and – where possible – incorporated them in the final version of the 2025 annual report.
Our role and position: provide execution and guidance within the limits of the law
We acknowledge the call to take a clearer stance on the structure of the energy system. In our role as a public network operator, we can make the consequences of economic and other choices explicit to society. At the same time, we remain a regulated executive organisation subject to the Dutch Energy Act and other laws. In the annual report, there are various places where we show what we are doing within the scope of what is possible for us, such as our involvement in the National Energy System Plan, the advice we provide to local government in the form of area visions and the active contribution we make, along with the sector as a whole, to improving laws and regulations. All the same, it is true that there are a few prominent points in the report – such as the foreword by the Management Board and the report of the Supervisory Board – where we could set out our steering role more clearly. We will assess these possibilities.
Make dilemmas more explicit – individual versus collective
We agree with the idea that network congestion can be a driver of change. However, the tension between reliability and availability will be a real dilemma for Alliander for as long as the full potential of anti-congestion measures cannot or will not be utilised. The panel did not recognise the dilemma between individual freedom and the collective interest in a robust system. Within our legal framework, we are not free to set priorities or refuse service. Our main role is therefore to make the consequences of choices transparent and help frame those choices better: for instance, through energy planning, area management and area visions. We do this for and alongside municipalities, provinces and partners in the value chain. That way, we provide direction without deviating from our independent, executive position.
Transparency, fairness and affordability
Specifically with regard to energy poverty, we are intensifying our contribution where it has the greatest effect, within the scope of our role and within the chain we are part of: in 2025, for instance, we affirmed our cooperation with Energiebank Nederland. In this year’s report, we are giving more space to affordability from both an investment and social perspective, and we are working within the sector on a new policy for vulnerable households.
Resilience and digital dependencies
Lastly, we agree on the importance of (digital) resilience. Our crisis management organisation has been beefed up in the past few years. The panel rightly notes that cloud dependency is an issue that deserves to be mentioned in the report, and we have added it. We are working on a policy vision for cloud services and we adhere closely to the relevant laws and regulations on critical infrastructure, such as NIS2. Where appropriate, we refer to these points explicitly in the report.