Grid congestion is not a fault in the system. It is the system asking to change

From a technical issue to a societal question

To address climate change and geopolitical tensions, we are moving away from fossil sources and using more renewable energy. That requires not only new technology, but also a different system design. We must shape that design while expanding, modernising and digitalising the current system.

Today's energy system is largely centrally organised. For years, that worked well. But as renewable generation grows and scarcity on the electricity grid increases, the system delivers outcomes we increasingly find undesirable. Companies cannot expand, businesses delay electrifying their production processes, and new homes may soon be unable to connect to the grid.

Grid congestion makes clear that electricity is no longer available without limit. The question is therefore not only how we organise more capacity, but also how we allocate scarce capacity fairly. What principles should guide those choices?

The parties in most pain are not the ones at the controls

One striking insight from the session is that the parties most affected by grid congestion are often not the same parties as those who control the system.

The entrepreneur who cannot expand, or the region that loses economic opportunities, does not decide how the energy system is designed. This creates a fundamental tension: those who need change most urgently have limited influence over its direction.

‘Right now, we try to eliminate every risk. Perhaps we need to accept that, every now and then, the lights go out.’

_{Participant, Vector Symposium}

Sticking plasters or redesign?

Many solutions for grid congestion focus on the existing system. We expand the electricity grid, create temporary room and solve local bottlenecks. That is understandable: it produces results fastest. But are we thereby holding on to an energy system that fits the future less ? If we want different outcomes, shouldn't we use different design principles?

One participant put it sharply: ‘Right now, we try to eliminate every risk. Perhaps we need to accept that, every now and then, the lights go out.’

Of course, the statement is not literally about accepting outages. It points to a deeper question: which certainties in the current energy system are we prepared to let go of to make room for flexibility, greater sustainability and a more decentralised model?

The real challenge sits beneath the surface

The mechanisms that accelerate or slow down system change sit precisely below the surface. With grid congestion, we see tensions between the short and long term, between individual and collective interests, and between central and decentralised control.

For example, acquired rights to transport capacity create high expectations around availability, reliability and security of supply. At the same time, a decentralised energy system requires greater agility from companies, governments and citizens alike. This is not only a technical or administrative change. Above all, it is a change in mindset.

A broader assessment of energy infrastructure

Interestingly, these insights align with our recent reflections on MIEK and pMIEK. We see the same search there: how do you make choices about energy infrastructure not only from technical necessity, but also from spatial development, economic choices and societal priorities?

The reflections show that provinces are getting better at this. At the same time, we see that the conversation often still revolves around projects and infrastructure, while the underlying question is bigger: what energy system do we want to realize? That makes the challenge of grid congestion broader than electricity alone and, alongside the technical dimension, also administrative and societal. The question is not only how we organise more capacity, but how we deal with scarcity and what choices we want to make.

New choices and letting go of existing certainties

Perhaps that is the most important lesson from this session. Grid congestion does not only call for more infrastructure. It calls for new choices about what we value, how we allocate scarcity and what future we want to build together. It also raises the question of what this means for expanding, modernizing and digitalizing the energy system.

The challenge, therefore, is not to keep the current system standing for as long as possible. The challenge is to take the next energy system seriously. But that does not start with cables, substations or contracts. It starts with a different mindset. It starts with the awareness that the energy system is becoming more decentralised, and that this requires different values, different trade-offs and willingness to embrace ambiguity