Accelerating energy‑infrastructure development requires clearer choices

Contribution to acceleration still unclear

Since its launch in 2021, the MIEK has grown into a key coordination mechanism for the programming, selection, prioritisation and implementation of energy infrastructure of major societal importance. Over time, the programme has expanded in scope: from a focus on industry to all usage sectors, and from a purely national perspective to include the regional level as well.

At the same time, external developments such as grid congestion, spatial constraints and geopolitical uncertainty are putting pressure on the programme. And although coordination and collaboration have demonstrably improved, it remains difficult to determine whether the MIEK is actually contributing to timely delivery and structural acceleration of energy‑infrastructure development. Project lists continue to grow, while having MIEK status has limited impact on investment decisions. Moreover, an explicit theory of change is lacking, and programme monitoring is still insufficiently developed.

Unclear positioning and limited integration

Partly due to its broader scope, the positioning of the MIEK in relation to other initiatives has become less clear. The programme is closely intertwined with new national initiatives such as the National Energy System Plan, the Programme for the Energy Main Structure, the Environment and Planning Act, the National Spatial Strategy and the National Action Programme on Grid Congestion. As a result, it is not always clear what sets the MIEK apart.

Although information exchange between the energy and spatial‑planning domains has improved significantly, genuine integration - making joint choices for energy and space - remains limited.

Improved collaboration and continuous learning

Governance quality within the MIEK has strengthened. Governments and grid operators are finding each other more easily, and mutual understanding has increased. This provides a more solid basis for programming and prioritisation. At the same time, collaboration has its limits. Differences in interests and pace, tensions between national and regional levels, parallel consultation structures and unclear mandates make it difficult to take decisive action.

The MIEK does show incremental learning, for example through the introduction of the system pathway for large‑scale projects and adjustments to the assessment framework. More fundamental learning, however, is still limited due to the pressure on decision‑making processes.

Suggestions for further development

The researchers put forward five suggestions for the further development of the MIEK:

• Make sharper choices: increase effectiveness through stricter prioritisation, fewer projects in the programme, clearer criteria and a coherent portfolio approach.
• Position the MIEK more strategically: clarify its role in relation to other national programmes and make linkages more explicit.
• Strengthen integration: connect earlier and more strongly with spatial developments, for example through joint scenarios and integrated spatial visions.
• Collaborate more purposefully: organise collaboration in a less voluntary manner, with clearer escalation pathways.
• Invest in systemic learning: promote systemic learning, including regular reassessment of assumptions, objectives and working methods.

By making clearer choices and sharpening its positioning, the MIEK can evolve into an adaptive and future‑oriented steering programme that truly accelerates the delivery of energy infrastructure of major societal importance.

This reflection on the MIEK - produced in collaboration with RVO, Tilburg University and Radboud University Nijmegen - builds on earlier reflections published by TNO in cooperation with PBL and RVO.