Imagine a founder standing inside a nearly finished workshop. The machinery has arrived. Staff contracts are signed. The old premises have been surrendered. On the project schedule, the electricity connection appears as an ordered item with an accepted offer. Around the table, everyone reads that line as progress.
The renewed ACM decision in the dispute between WoonFriesland and Liander shows why that confidence may be premature. ACM issued the decision on 16 July 2026 and published it on 28 July. The decision followed the CBb judgment of 28 April 2026, ECLI:NL:CBB:2026:180, which annulled ACM’s earlier reasoning and required a fresh assessment.
WoonFriesland accepted Liander’s offer for twelve 3x25A connections on 22 December 2022. Four homes were connected on 19 July 2023. Liander connected the remaining eight between 25 and 31 March 2024. The decisive issue was not simply how many weeks had passed. It was whether transport capacity had been available during that period.
A connection and usable power are different things
ACM found that transport capacity was unavailable and treated that shortage as an important circumstance. In this case, the connection period was suspended until sufficient capacity became available. Liander installed a transformer station. Once capacity was available, it completed the requested connections within one week.
This is a specific dispute, not a general calendar rule for every project. Its wider meaning is more practical. An accepted connection offer does not necessarily establish the date on which a building can use electricity.
That distinction is easy to miss because the paperwork looks reassuring. There is an offer, a technical specification and perhaps a regulated charge. The project team can point to a document. Yet the business still needs an answer to a separate question: can the network transport the electricity required at the site?
For the founder in the workshop, that answer governs far more than the electrician’s schedule. It affects when machinery can be tested, when staff can work, when customers can be served and when revenue can begin. A site may be physically complete while remaining commercially unavailable.
The wrong milestone can travel through the company
I read the WoonFriesland decision as a governance warning about false certainty. One optimistic milestone can quietly enter several records. The construction plan says complete. The lease says commencement. The lender’s forecast assumes income. Equipment invoices fall due. Recruitment continues. Meanwhile, correspondence with the network operator still refers to congestion or reinforcement work.
Each document may be accurate within its own narrow purpose. Together, they tell conflicting stories.
That is where an infrastructure delay becomes a management problem. The connection charge may be visible and limited. The cost of waiting is spread across interest, contractor time, temporary arrangements, idle equipment, delayed rent and postponed turnover. Those amounts rarely sit under one heading, so management can underestimate the exposure until cash starts leaving faster than expected.
A stronger cash forecast separates construction completion from electricity readiness. Those dates may eventually coincide. They should not be treated as identical merely because an offer has been accepted.
Contracts deserve the same care. A landlord may promise possession on one date while the tenant assumes the premises can support cooling, charging, electric heating or production equipment from day one. A developer may agree a handover timetable that says little about grid capacity. The legal wording and the operational assumption can then drift apart.
Evidence matters more than an average wait
The CBb’s intervention also sharpens the proof question. ACM’s earlier decision had relied heavily on average connection periods of roughly 18 to 22 weeks. The court found that the reasoning did not adequately address the facts, circumstances and interests of the particular case.
Elapsed time still matters, but it cannot tell the whole story. A serious project record should show when transport scarcity became known, what reinforcement was required, when capacity returned and how quickly the network operator acted afterwards. It should also show what management did with that information.
This does not require a grand reporting system. For a small company, one current page may be enough. It can distinguish the accepted offer, requested capacity, confirmed transport position, remaining physical work, expected operating date and person responsible for the next decision. The value lies in keeping those entries dated and connected to the lease, budget and customer commitments.
As of 28 July 2026, ACM was still working with network operators and market parties on new concrete connection periods for small users. Earlier code terms of 12, 18 and, in congestion cases, up to 52 weeks came from a code decision that was later largely annulled. Those figures should not be presented inside a project as current fixed entitlements.
Responsibility starts before the delay
National policy is moving towards faster grid expansion and more flexible use of capacity. The Energiewet entered into force on 1 January 2026, and government measures to accelerate energy infrastructure also started that month. That direction matters, but national policy is not a confirmed delivery date for one workshop, shop or housing project.
The founder in our workshop still needs a local answer. Before giving notice on the old unit, ordering the final machine or promising customers an opening week, someone must reconcile the network position with the commercial timetable. That is not merely a technical task for the installer. It is a decision about cash, contracts and responsibility.
The calm lesson from WoonFriesland is that “connection ordered” is too weak as a management conclusion. A company needs to know whether electricity will be usable for the activity it intends to run, and what remains uncertain if it will not.
A signed offer is valuable. It is simply not the same as an operating business. Good governance begins by refusing to confuse the two.
Need to assess what a grid delay means for your cash, contracts and opening plan?
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Paolo Maria Pavan. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Paolo Maria Pavan before publication.
References
- Geschilbesluit WoonFriesland – Liander, na uitspraak CBb | ACM
- College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven - CBb correction of the earlier ACM reasoning
- Autoriteit Consument en Markt - Missing fixed connection terms for small electricity connections
- Autoriteit Consument en Markt - Current practical connection position for small users
- College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven - Contracted transport capacity as a recorded entitlement
- Rijksoverheid - Current policy pressure on grid expansion and flexible capacity use
- Rijksoverheid - Energiewet and the shift toward flexible network use
- Autoriteit Consument en Markt
