Heating law and the Heating Act

Financial Mismanagement

Financial mismanagement in the context of the Heat Act may manifest itself through careless budgeting for the construction and operation of heat networks, unclear storage of contingency reserve funds, or incomplete cost allocation in calculating the so-called “maximum allowable tariff.” For example, a network operator lacking adequate treasury guidelines may fail to sufficiently cover maintenance costs or replacement investments for pipelines and heat exchangers. If a provider is found to have set up the tariff calculation models non-transparently or misleadingly—such as by passing on higher profit margins to customers—this leads to retroactive corrections by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and claims from consumer organizations. Municipalities providing subsidies for waste heat projects risk unforeseen fines and clawbacks if financial reporting is inadequate. Such situations make the business case for new district heating projects unreliable, force investors to conduct stricter due diligence, and may prompt banks to demand additional securities, significantly prolonging the permitting process.

Fraud

Fraud within the heat supply chain occurs when companies intentionally use misleading data or false certifications to meet the requirements of the Heat Act or SDE subsidies. Examples include operators of biomass or geothermal installations who systematically underreport heat delivery to avoid penalties or consultancy firms that manipulate soil and water samples to expedite environmental permitting. Fraud can also occur in connection registration: artificially splitting consumption points to remain below a tariff threshold or booking non-existent customers. The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) and the ACM conduct random inspections and reassess subsidies and tariff calculations. However, once large-scale fraud is discovered, this results in clawbacks, fines of millions of euros, and civil litigation from affected large customers. Public outrage damages the reputation of the entire heat sector and can lead to additional enforcement protocol requirements and stricter monitoring by regulatory authorities.

Bribery

Bribery in heat projects occurs when officials, municipal project leaders, or external advisors receive kickbacks in exchange for favorable decisions on construction permits or tariff approvals under the Heat Act. This can happen through direct payments or disguised “consultancy fees” and mutual transactions backed by seemingly legitimate invoices. A project developer might, for example, declare extra “advisory costs” to gain quicker access to a municipal land development scheme for waste heat infrastructure. If bribery is proven, the court will annul all granted permits and subsidies, criminal prosecution of the involved officials will follow, and compliance with the Heat Act criteria for the project will cease. Legal proceedings often last for years, delaying not only the affected project but also impacting other ongoing projects within the same municipality or region, and breeding a culture of distrust between market parties and government authorities.

Money Laundering

Money laundering in the heat sector can occur when criminal networks invest in heat networks or installations through intermediary companies, whereby the flow of illegally obtained funds is absorbed into seemingly legitimate operational or investment costs. This might happen through artificially inflated installation costs or fabricated guarantees for heat delivery. Municipalities or provinces that fail to critically examine the financial structures—focusing instead solely on CO₂-reduction milestones without scrutinizing the transparency of capital flows—may become unintentionally complicit. When the Dutch Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU-NL) or the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) detects suspicious transactions, bank accounts are frozen, subsidies and European SDE allocations are revoked, and ongoing permitting procedures are halted. This forces involved parties to restructure their financing, leads to forced early repayments of loans, and can even result in the bankruptcy of heat companies, with social and ecological consequences due to disrupted heat supply.

Corruption

Corruption under the Heat Act goes beyond occasional bribery; it may indicate a culture where administrative decisions are systematically influenced by lobby groups or personal interests. For instance, when municipal councils consistently allocate thermal waste streams under favorable conditions to parties that make political donations or where board members hold additional positions at consultancy or operating companies. Such conflicts of interest undermine the equality of market players and erode public trust. After exposure, there often follows a thorough parliamentary or national inspection investigation, motions of no confidence in municipal councils, and amendments to local ordinances regarding heat infrastructure. Companies that have been unjustly favored risk having their contracts revised or annulled, triggering a cascade of civil claims and administrative procedures, and causing substantial reputational damage to both public and private actors.

Violation of International Sanctions

The heat supply chain may come into conflict with international sanctions when network components—such as heat pumps, pipe insulation, or turbine parts—originate from sanctioned suppliers, or when foreign investors from sanctioned countries are involved in financing. Violation of UN or EU sanctions leads to immediate revocation of export and import permits, freezing of assets, and fines by the Ministry of Finance. European SDE subsidies can also be withdrawn if it turns out that an installation uses sanctioned technology or supply chains. This not only affects the individual project but damages the Netherlands’ credibility as a reliable destination for international investment in the heat transition and can trigger diplomatic repercussions, thereby straining cooperation with other international donors or research institutions.