Local governments until recently did not include solar installations in their spatial planning, which made it difficult for project developers to find enough land available for their projects. Recently, this has shifted slightly and more and more local governments are now including it in their land-use plans, and also having discussions about solar on waste factories and the water for example.

Concerning the financial feasibility of PV development, the zip code model has been introduced a few years ago, easing the process for developers of PV systems to attract private equity for their projects. Under the model, private investors, located with their permanent residences in the same zip code area where the system will be build or in adjacent zip code zones, could invest in a solar rooftop installation and declare their share of the produced electricity as own consumption, deductible from their electricity bill. There are however geographical limitation of the zip code model regarding the involvement of private investors, which are only very partially compatible with the development of large scale commercial installations. Potential investors might not necessarily live close to the foreseen development side, limiting the circle of potential investors. This geographical limitation of the zip code model is thus limiting the development opportunities of solar in the Netherlands in general. Although the geographical limitation has yet to be targeted, tax credits have been added for participants which makes it more attractive. The zip code scheme will soon undergo drastic changes. Until a while ago it was planned to scrap it from 2020, but due to the continuation of the netting arrangement until 2023 it will now be retained. In either way, there is a lot of attention being paid to how the model can be optimised in the short-term.

The modification of rules concerning the cumulating of support scheme options for large solar installations are an issue for the development of this technology. To this end, developers of large scale commercial PV systems are no longer allowed to cumulate the SDE+ support scheme with the EIA tax reduction scheme. This change has resulted in conditions, where most developers opt for the EIA scheme and are excluded from the eligibility of the SDE+ scheme. This restriction of the support scheme options is decisively reducing the financial feasibility of large scale commercial PV systems.

Banks and other investors are very risk adverse in the Netherlands, in part still due to the financial crisis of 2008, and are still not very keen on financing high risk projects, especially on-shore wind, biomass and geothermal. There is a fear that the access to finance will become a bigger problem for smaller project developers now that the off-shore tenders won by consortia, like the Eneco-Shell consortium, do not need third party investors. These consortia are made up out of big companies that have enough assets to self-fund. This leads to a situation in which it is highly difficult for smaller project developers that are not able to self-fund, to get access to third party funding. The reason for this is that it is more difficult to make a profit on these smaller projects when competing with big self-funded projects, which makes investors even less likely to provide funding.

Small developers need to be supported to make their projects more interesting for investors. This can possibly be done through additional subsidies for this group of developers which could allow them to form the consortia so that they can compete with bigger, self-funded, consortia. Currently, small developers struggle to join forces, because the nature of their projects does not always lend itself for a consortium. The project is often just too small which makes it unfeasible and uninteresting for a consortium.

Curtailment of renewable energy installations occurs in times of overcapacities; however only at a minor scale. Overcapacities in the Dutch grid are however mainly caused by neighbouring countries, "dumping" excessive power into the Dutch grid and forcing Dutch grid operators to take stabilising measures in form of curtailment. The barrier was in former times primarily reported for onshore wind installations; lately, also other technologies are reporting the conditions as barrier. The main reason here again is the grid capacity shortage that causes these occurences of curtailment. Tackling this problem will be the largest challenge for the Netherlands.

The Dutch public, partially fuelled by local environmental groups and certain local and national politicians, shows some NIMBY resistance against onshore wind, biomass and geothermal and to a lesser extent also against off-shore wind. For biomass and geothermal, most NIMBY resistance takes place in so-called “buitengebieden”, where greenhouses and farms are in the middle of, mainly luxury, homes. Those resisting against biomass in general conflate the general discussion about the sustainability of biomass and the effects on the local population close to installations with the discussion about the co-firing. That makes that the discussion become very heated and even enters the, unrelated, area of the closure of coal-fired power stations. The Netherlands also don't have many sources for biomass, this makes the import of wood necessary (from Canada for example). Of course this has also led to resitance. These broad and grant discussions that often have little to do with the specific project that is protested against, and still means that the project developer has to deal with the delays and financial losses because of the protest.

Geothermal is not perceived as negatively as biomass but there is a fear that resistance will increase due to the (gas) drilling related problems in Groningen that have received a lot of media attention.

Overall, a substantial decrease in resistance can be seen over the past few years for on-shore wind. Off-shore wind is still subject to resistance, because of human-wildlife conflicts, but this issue is being addressed.. There is an increase however in the technologies affected. Initially, it was mainly on-shore wind but lately also off-shore wind, biomass and geothermal are resisted. Project developers and governmental authorities try to address this barrier by involving the public more and more in the decision-making processes.

In the Netherlands negotiations are currently ongoing about the expansion of Lelystad airport and flight paths. Wind turbines close to airports must comply with certain rules (e.g. height). As long as there is uncertainty about the expansion of airports and flight routes, project developers are hesistant to construct wind turbines in the regions that will possibly be affected. One of the main problem is the 'low flying zone' around Lelystad. However, since mid april 2019 the government released a statement that the 'low flying zone' will be abolished. Skepticism yet remains, as the final plan for Lelystad 2020 is not yet published. In general, there are still some height restrictions in force in the Netherlands that hinder the construction of winter turbines.

There are a number of EU regulations on wildlife protection (e.g. birds) the Netherlands must adhere to. Wind turbines occasionally kill birds, so it is likely that by increasing the amount of offshore wind turbines, the Netherlands will violate nature legislation. More research into the numbers and behaviour of migratory birds is needed, so wind turbines can be managed accordingly. For instance, it would be possible to temporarily stop an offshore wind park when a large group of bird passes. A large-scale court case is currently ongoing with all stakeholders, addressing this issue.Provinces, the government, nature reserves and others are looking at how species protection can be tackled. In accordance with European directives, it is currently being examined which agreements can be made that comply legally and provide greater clarity. Completion is expected at the end of 2019.

The development of wind and solar throughout the last years has surpassed expectations and surprised grid operators in the Netherlands. To this end, the required grid development was not keeping pace with the development of installations and capacities. Grid development is slowed down by lengthy and complicated procedures as well as by growing resistance from the general public. In some parts of the Netherlands, most notably in Southeast Groningen, the realisation of a number of solar parks is planned. The grid's capacity, however, is currently not sufficient to connect all these solar parks to the grid. When assessing applications for the SDE+ subsidy, grid capacity is not taken into account. As expanding the grid takes longer than developing a solar park (mostly due to administrative issues), the grid operators expect difficulties.The grid availability and development is thus a central bottleneck for the development of renewable project, particulalrly onshore wind and solar and will be an even bigger issue in light of the development of the offshore potential in the Netherlands.

The certification of Buiding Integrated PV (BIPV) components is complex and therefore expensive. This hinders the development of BIPV in the Netherlands.

Stakeholders are currently negotiating about the new Climate Accord, which should lead to a Climate Law. The negotiations are taking much longer than expected, as the final draft approvement is now expected for October 2019, instead of December 2018. There are different tables (a.o. Electricity and Built Environment). Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) falls within the scope of various tables, yet is not addressed properly. This is likely to have negative consequences for future legislation on and subsidy schemes for BIPV.

A large-scale airspace revision is planned in the Netherlands in 2022, which creates uncertainty among project developers and investors of wind turbines. The layout of the airspace has an influence on wind energy projects. These are subject to all kinds of restrictions and conditions in connection with the low flight routes on the one hand and the radar stations that ensure flight safety on the other. The air details have not yet been published, until then some sort of reservation remains.

A rising risk for wind farms is a fall in price for wind energy, which makes the long-term business models of these plants riskier. In contrary to other RES plants, wind energy plants require long-term investment, therefore solid business models are essential. This will mainly have an impact on offshore wind energy, because they are also no longer eligible for subsidies.

The government must ensure more certainty so that the business case for wind projects becomes more stable, for example in the form of a price guarantee.

In the Climate Agreement, which is expected to be officially ratified in October 2019, CO2 reduction will become a central theme. In the long term, the general objectives are included in the reduction of CO² without real sub-targets for example for renewable energy. The most important support schemes such as SDE +, DEI and others will be expanded with a CO² reduction focus. Renewable energy projects will therefore no longer be the only eligible technologies and applications for these schemes, but also other methods and technologies that reduce CO² emissions, such as insulation. This could affect the further development of renewable energy, by minimising the share of the overall budget avilable for renewable projects.

In the Netherlands, there is a shortage of technicians in general, but also in specific for the installtions of renewable projects, such as PV installations, heat pumps, wind turbines etc. Because the economy has come out of recession and the renewable energy market is growing, demand has grown enormously. However, the supply of qualified installers remains far too low. In the field of heat pumps, a good training course has been started under the Green Deal, as a result of which hundreds of heat pump installers have been trained lately.

Geothermal and biomass project developers have struggled to find third party funding in the past. Over the last 2 years this has improved a lot, as the market has become more mature. The success of many previous projects has remarkably increased the confidence of investors. The main barriers for geothermal projects now are finding customers and the technology itself. For biomass projects, resistance remains the most important barrier.

The uncertainty for project developers will be taken away, if they are allowed to apply already during the planning stage. For this to work, the amount of subsidy under SDE+ needs to be made available for a longer time period. The inherent risk in this approach would be that installations which request funding are never finalized. This can, in turn, be overcome again by a mile-stone approach, which would require developers to realise a certain mile stone in a given time. If they fail, they will be taken out of the line and the money is given to the next applicant or fed back in the global support sum of the next round.

The Dutch public is not keen on biomass and biogas projects, partially fuelled by local and national politicians and environmental groups. There is fear for smell issues, and other disturbances in the areas of the installations, among which, the disturbance caused by heavy vehicles transporting the feedstock to biogas installations. Furthermore, the discussion regarding biomass is often linked with the discussion of phasing out fossil fuels, which is not favourable. Many environmental groups use the example of co-firing of biomass in coal fired power stations and their related argument that all coal fired power stations need to be shut down, to create a bad image for biomass in general. This has knock-on effects to other biomass projects completely separate from coal-fired power stations.

This NIMBY resistance is further linked to the bad sustainability image of biofuels which in the past gained a lot of attention, because feedstock for 1st generation biofuels can also be used to feed people. These separate, but related, discussions have led to substantial resistance against biomass and biogas. The resistance has become even greater, since forests are being cut down and subsequently used as raw materials for the biomass plants. However, this often concerns forests that were planted at the time of mining and do not meet the NATURA 2000 regulations. They are therefore cut down for the purpose of replanting, but this is not perceived as such by the people. Another major factor that strengthens the resistance is the fear of fine particule pollution from the power stations.

Industry and government need to cooperate to change the public perception of the people, so that less resistance against biomass and biogas projects will take place. This can be broad education about the need for all renewables for the energy transition. Further, it should tackle very specific issues that have to do with biomass and biogas. For example, the concern of heavy vehicles transporting feedstock to biomass installations can be addressed by only allowing the vehicles in the neighbourhood during specific hours, that the public and the exploiter of the installations have agreed upon. Furthermore, clear communication concerning forest clearing is required.

In the last few years the Dutch government was focused on large-scale H&C projects and less on household scale projects. Until early 2016, there were no specific subsidies available for H&C solar or geothermal projects on the household scale, which meant that only very few people actually started these projects.

Since 2016, however, there is the ISDE subsidy that specifically targets household scale projects, to ensure that there will be a more equal balance between support for large scale and smaller scale projects. The ISDE schedule remains stable for the future. Pellet stoves could disappear from the subsidy, but heat pumps will certainly remain eligible.

As the SDE+ is only awarded after projects have been realised and are operating, the developer has to pre-finance a substantial amount, whilst he is at the same time exposed to a high share of uncertainty. Consequently, developers might be reluctant to make the required investments. However, this is only important for large-scale projects. Due to the greater maturity of the market, the uncertainty has somewhat disappeared over the past time.

The concept of heat networks is currently relatively unknown and the major difficulty is finding a good business model. As long as this is not on point, it remains difficult to find appropriate financing. However, plans have been made for larger biomass district heating networks. For example a large project in Amsterdam will become an important reference point for the future. To date, there is also no subsidy for district heating, only for the generation of sustainable heat.

The Climate Agreement laid down large-scale objectives with regard to the natural gas-freeing of homes. The long-term objective is to make 1.5 million homes gas-free by 2030. This will be a major challenge in the coming years. In the short term, all kinds of measures have been taken to make this happen, including a large plan that municipalities and provinces have to work out. At the moment, there are already quite a few testing grounds for gaining experience. By 2021, all municipalities must draw up a plan promoting a solution for each neighborhood. For example heat pumps or heat networks or a combination with insulation. The biggest bottleneck is the large scale on which it is tackled, the government must create support. The biggest fear for the population is who will bear the cost for all this. A large part does not want to pay for the investment required.The problem in (gas-extraction) Groningen has, however, generated considerable support in this area

In the context of the natural gas-freeing of homes, heat networks will also play a more important role. The challenge, however, is to install this on already built homes. This is not as obvious as with new construction.

The renewable transport sector in the Netherlands is currently missing a holistic approach. That is, action is happening related to different technologies, e.g. only for electric vehicles or only for biofuels, but the separate actions are not linked enough. A holistic approach would benefit the industry as a whole, because it will allow all parties to make longer term plans. This barrier is closely linked to the barrier NLT05. After all, the creation of a holistic approach is made extra difficult because there is not one governmental department driving the energy, and specifically the transport, transition.

There is a perception that the Dutch government focuses too much on privately owned cars and long haul trucks. The segment of business owned cars (“grijze kentekens”) and especially delivery vans has not yet been targeted, while a lot of possibilities can be found here. Nevertheless, the demand for electric company cars is increasing rapidly, 3 times more electric company cars were sold in 2018 compared to 2017. The main reason for this trend is the green image.

It needs to be ensured that all segments are included in the transport policy. Currently, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat) focuses too much on personal vehicles and heavy vehicles. The inclusion of business-owned cars (“grijze kentekens”) will allow for a more inclusive transition, and benefit the transition as a whole. The share of EV in the business-owned fleet could increase by e.g. lowering the tax on vehicles for EVs, or by increasing it for conventional cars.

There is an issue regarding the insufficient flexibility of the SDE+ support scheme regarding the switchover of biogas projects from one support scheme option to another. To this end, biogas operators that have opted for the SDE+ support are not allowed to resign from the scheme for a certain year or year to benefit from the obligation period for the respective period. The current scheme obligates operators to refund the entire received subsidy through the SDE+ scheme prior to the switchover into the obligation scheme.

In 2014, the Brandstofvisie – Fuel Vision – set out the transition for the transport sector and included all technologies: electric vehicles (EVs), biofuel vehicles and hydrogen vehicles. However, the industry feels that the civil servants within the responsible ministries selectively decide to focus on electric vehicles (EVs) to the detriment of the other technologies. This accusation is strongly denied by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency – Rijksdienst voor Ondernemen (RVO) who do not recognise this issue and find that the Brandstofvisie is adhered to. In other words, RVO does not recognise that biofuels and hydrogen do not get the attention that EVs do get.

First generation biofuels have been very controversial, and faced a lot of public criticism, because the crops can also be used as food crops. This problem has led to policy makers in the Netherlands and Brussels to allow only a small percentage of first generation biofuels (see for example the vote of the European Parliament on the phasing out of first generation biofuels by 2020 in February of 2015). The industry, however, would like to see a complete ban on the first generation. The industry has already moved to second generation biofels, and would like the legislators in the Netherlands and the EU to focus on supporting the second generation biofuels, instead of using their means to work on a generation that is no longer used by the industry.

Instead of worrying about the sustainability criteria of first generation biofuels, a ban of first generation biofuels should be targeted to allow for a comprehend save transition of the industry to second generation biofuels.

Third party investors are still hesitant to invest in Electric Vehicles (EVs), as they perceive it to be too risky. This hesitation is partially still based on the 2008 financial crisis, but mainly also on the public perception of EVs and the hesitation of Parliament to provide a purchase subsidy for EVs. The latter two reasons make that the growth of the technology over the next few years is not readily accepted by the investors, despite the trends showing that as a technology EVs will see a significant grow over the next few years.

The Dutch public still considers Electric Vehicles (EVs) to not be a reliable means of transport. They consider EVs to only be suitable for short distances and that EVs are only available for the higher market segment. Many consider EV's too expensive at the moment and prefer to wait until the market matures so prices drop. This perception of EVs makes that people are hesitant to purchase one, despite these claims arguably being outdated and not completely accurate anymore. Over the past year many charging stations were built, from approximately 6.000 to 17.500. The government and market parties joint forces with the Green Deal on Public Accessibility Charging Infrastructure. As a result, 250 municipalities made use of the government grant in 10 combined applications. The public awareness of this growing infrastructure has also increased, nevertheless the barrier remains relevant.

In the Netherlands, there is a strong focus on innovation that the scaling-up of renewable energy technologies is sometimes forgotten. The energy transition requires large-scale changes in the energy system, however.