The Federal Network Agency intends to evaluate network operators based on their “energy transition competence” and publish the results. This is less a technical regulatory tool than a form of public pressure on critical infrastructure, as a ranking can have a positive impact on a company’s reputation. At the same time, a crucial practical metric is being overlooked: a key indicator for the standardization of network connections and IT processes, even though providers identify precisely this as a major bottleneck. (welt: 26.01.26)
Transparency becomes a sanction, even though the system is highly complex
The authority announces that it will publish individual key performance indicators in the future. This effectively turns “transparency” into a reputational penalty, because poor results immediately trigger discussions in municipal committees. At the same time, network bottlenecks depend on factors that cannot be regulated away in the short term, and therefore a ranking can promote false accusations.
The Federal Network Agency states that bonus or penalty payments are “not yet” planned. This “yet” nevertheless sets a framework for expectations, as it suggests that the ranking will be monetized at a later date. Furthermore, it creates a sense of dread before it’s even clear whether the measurement concept will function reliably.
Connection bottleneck: Demand surge, not “laziness”
Network operators have been reporting full capacity for months, and waiting lists are growing. Mainova’s network subsidiary in Frankfurt expects to be able to connect additional data centers only in the mid-2030s. 50Hertz cites the end of 2029 as the cutoff date; the company plans to connect 75 projects by then, with another 150 connection requests expected from 2030 onward.
Distribution network operators are also reporting a surge in demand. Westnetz anticipated a doubling of applications for rooftop solar connections between 2021 and 2024; in reality, the number quadrupled. This makes it clear how quickly planning, materials, personnel, and permits reach their limits.
“Name and shame” is not appropriate for critical infrastructure
The strategy is known as “name and shame.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “publicly stating that a person, group, or company has done something wrong.” While this can be effective in areas with clear violations, many variables come into play simultaneously in network infrastructure, which is why public shaming quickly becomes a substitute for root cause analysis.
Comparisons with transparency offices for fuel or district heating are also insufficient. Prices in those sectors can be measured empirically, whereas in a competence assessment, the selection of key performance indicators shapes the outcome. Furthermore, rankings can have economic consequences because municipalities might base concessions, investors on risk premiums, and project developers on location decisions.
The biggest gap: Standardization isn’t measured
New energy providers support the idea of quality regulation because they expect faster processes. LichtBlick criticizes the lack of digitalization and the “sluggish implementation of legal requirements such as the smart meter rollout.” The company also points to hundreds of different technical and connection conditions that slow down projects because each operator uses different rules.
Octopus Energy also cites the lack of standards as a core problem. Germany CEO Bastian Gierull says: “We are struggling with the lack of standardization on various issues – from smart meters and heat pumps to bidirectional charging.” He also criticizes: “More than 800 different isolated solutions are a huge obstacle to digitalization in Germany.” Despite this, the Federal Network Agency refuses to collect any key performance indicators specifically for the standardization of grid connections.
BDEW warns of false precision and limited controllability
Kerstin Andreae, head of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), criticizes the fact that it remains “unclear which specific problems the new regulatory instrument is intended to solve during implementation.” She believes the proposed key performance indicators (KPIs) are only partially controllable because supply chain problems and customer decisions are outside the network operators’ control. Furthermore, the data collected between March and April 2025 is “characterized by high levels of estimation and does not allow for a reliable assessment of the companies’ energy transition competence.”
If KPIs are heavily estimated, their publication does not appear transparent, but rather like an official seal of approval without a reliable basis for measurement. Andreae, on the other hand, considers a bonus system plausible, one that rewards actual contributions because it stimulates investment without penalizing operators for uncontrollable risks.