Government contributes to Dutch gas reserves
Government gives EBN a greater role as market players do not automatically fill storage.
The Netherlands is lowering its target for gas reserves this winter, but continues to use public funds to fill storage facilities. The cabinet is thereby trying to combine security of supply with a gas market that, according to official documents, offers insufficient certainty.
At the beginning of September, the cabinet lowered the Dutch target for winter reserves to 64 per cent, or approximately 93 terawatt hours. This followed a call from the European Commission to reduce storage targets by 10 per cent in a strained energy market. According to the cabinet, 93 terawatt hours is more than sufficient in an average winter; average withdrawals from storage over the past five winters were approximately 70 terawatt hours.
The lower target does not mean that the government is withdrawing from the gas market. Energie Beheer Nederland, a state-owned company, can buy gas and fill storage facilities when market players do not do enough. For the 2026–2027 storage year, EBN will have this task at Bergermeer, Norg and Grijpskerk, among others.
The reason is a divergence between market incentives and public interests. Companies fill storage when they expect gas to be sold later at a higher price than it costs now. The government also considers security of supply during a cold winter or geopolitical crisis. Those two interests do not always coincide.
Parliamentary papers state that the Netherlands has storage capacity not only for its own market. Gas is traded within Europe, and stored gas can form part of regional supply. As a result, Dutch storage facilities can also matter to neighbouring countries, while Dutch taxpayers may bear the financial risk of public procurement.
The budget documents therefore provide for a subsidy and a lending facility for EBN. These financial instruments are intended for purchasing gas and providing liquidity support for trading transactions; the sources consulted do not give a definitive total amount for the eventual costs.
The choice highlights a structural dilemma. Gas storage reduces the likelihood of shortages, but keeps a fossil-fuel system going for longer and may give market players less incentive to bear the risk themselves. At the same time, a fully commercial approach may fall short when the societal costs of a crisis are far greater than the costs of storage.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Netherlands is lowering its target for winter reserves to 64 per cent, or approximately 93 terawatt hours.
- EBN can fill storage when market players do not do enough.
- Gas storage and gas supply are part of a European market.
Left
Arguments Security of supply is a public responsibility and must not depend entirely on short-term profit. Public money should also be used to accelerate energy saving, insulation and sustainable alternatives.
Values Collective security, affordability and climate responsibility.
Consequences Public storage can protect households from crises, but subsidies for fossil-fuel infrastructure can slow the energy transition.
Centre
Arguments Gas storage is a form of insurance against exceptional winters and geopolitical disruptions. The government can step in temporarily, but must be transparent about risks, costs and the phase-out towards a climate-neutral energy system.
Values Precaution, continuity and administrative manageability.
Consequences The approach can prevent shortages, but requires oversight to avoid market distortion and unlimited public liability.
Right
Arguments The government should not structurally bail out market players when they consider storage commercially unattractive. If storage is needed for other European countries, those countries and users should bear the costs fairly.
Values Budgetary discipline, national interests and market forces.
Consequences A stricter commercial approach can limit public costs, but increases the risk that storage is too low in a crisis.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article distinguishes between established storage targets, policy choices and uncertain costs. The broad claim about paying for neighbouring countries has deliberately been softened to a description of the European market and public risk.
- confirmed The Dutch storage target has been adjusted to 64 per cent, or approximately 93 terawatt hours. — This is stated in the Dutch government’s news report of 11 September 2026. source
- confirmed Average withdrawals from Dutch gas storage facilities over the past five winters were approximately 70 terawatt hours. — This figure appears in the same government report. source
- confirmed EBN can fill gas storage facilities when the market does not do enough. — The Lower House (Tweede Kamer) letter describes this public task for EBN. source
- confirmed A subsidy and a lending facility have been provided for EBN. — This is stated in the budget documents on filling the storage facilities. source
Editor's note
The storage targets, EBN’s role and the public financing instruments have been confirmed. The sources give no definitive amount for the eventual cost of storage and do not support the wording that the Netherlands literally pays for all neighbouring countries.Sources
- Nederland volgt oproep Europese Commissie en verlaagt vuldoel wintervoorraad gas — Rijksoverheid
- Update vulgraden gasopslagen — Tweede Kamer
- Klimaat en Groene Groei: begroting 2026 — Rijksoverheid
- Voorwoord raad van bestuur: Jaarverslag 2025 — Gasunie
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „gasopslag energie”
- de Volkskrant — „gasopslag energie”
- NU.nl — „gasopslag energie”