We’re investing billions in the energy transition, yet grid costs rise and congestion grows. The real solution? Flexibility, not cables.
The paradox of the energy transition
The electrification of our society and the growth of decentralised renewable energy are beginning to weigh heavily on our energy infrastructure. Congestion problems are becoming increasingly common, both at the transmission and distribution levels.
The solution seems simple: invest more. Grid operator Elia is planning no less than €31 billion in investments over the coming years, a third of which will be in Belgium.
This is a staggering amount, but at the same time, it means we have reached the limit of our investment capacity. It is almost impossible to invest more. And more importantly, everyone pays, because these investments are passed on in the energy bill. This has consequences for inflation, purchasing power, and the competitiveness of our economy.
Cheaper renewable energy... but increasingly expensive network costs
The paradox is complete: renewable energy should make energy affordable. But rising network costs are having the opposite effect. The transition is becoming more expensive, which is slowing down electrification, even though it is the core of the solution.
Germany shows that there is another way.
Our eastern neighbors have decided to reduce network costs by more than 57% in 2026, from 6.65 to 2.86 cents per kWh. Thanks to a subsidy of €6.5 billion from the national climate fund, the government is covering part of the necessary investments.
At the same time, they are reducing the electricity tax for industry and agriculture. The result? A stronger competitive position for companies and an acceleration of the energy transition.
Belgium holds the key
Belgium can also learn from this example. Government investment in the energy transition is not a cost, but a lever. It has a direct impact on inflation, competitiveness, and the speed of our transition.
But even if we invest more, congestion will not disappear. Building new infrastructure takes years, permits remain a hindrance, and there is a severe shortage of technically skilled people. So we need more than just concrete and cables.
The smartest investment: flexibility
By intelligently managing consumption and production, also known as demand response, we can get more capacity out of the existing grid.
Companies and households that can temporarily adjust their energy consumption to peaks and troughs provide an essential service. Large industrial players and battery parks already receive benefits or exemptions for this. But SMEs and households, which together represent the greatest potential, are still missing out. And that's a shame. Because they, in particular, can make a difference through the “power of many.”
Ironically, the assets that contribute to grid stability currently pay the full price for grid and transmission tariffs and energy taxes. Instead of discouraging this behaviour, we should be encouraging it.
With the right incentives, citizens and SMEs can actively contribute to grid stability, help reduce investment costs, and accelerate the transition.
If we don't do this, we risk sending the wrong signal: more and more people will want to “go off-grid” to avoid taxes. That won't help anyone in the long run.
Think beyond cables
The energy transition is too important to rely solely on billions in investments and large-scale infrastructure projects. We must harness the power of decentralised flexibility and create a level playing field in which everyone who contributes to the solution is rewarded for doing so.
So don't just invest in bigger cables, but structurally in smart solutions and a market model that rewards efficient grid use. This is not an easy budget exercise, but it is one with maximum social impact.
