FID for battery storage: The AgNes deadline for net charging fee exemption

Brief overview

• The Federal Network Agency will link the 20-year exemption from network charges for battery storage (Section 118(6) of the EnWG) in the context of the AgNes reform to a verifiable Final Investment Decision (FID).
• Anyone who wants to secure the exemption must obtain the FID before the final decision is announced meeting. The implementation of the determination is scheduled to take place January 1, 2027.
• Two core criteria apply according to the draft regulation of August 6, 2026:
  • There must be binding orders placed via at least 50 % of the investment volume that had been made by then. 
  • A contract withdrawal is only possible with a significant property damage (Target: around 25% % of the investment volume) is connected.
• The FID test must be done by March 31, 2027 are available to the connection network operator, the commissioning no later than August 4, 2029 to be done.
• Several interpretation issues are still open in the final draft – including whether framework contracts with a call-back model are sufficient and what exactly counts as consequential damage. Whether and when the Federal Network Agency will clarify these points after the consultation ends is uncertain (as of September 18, 2026).

Background: The AgNes reform and the net charging exemption

Under current law, battery storage facilities benefit from a 20-year exemption from network charges (§ 118, paragraph 6, EnWG). As part of the AgNes reform (incentive regulation for network operators in the storage era), the Federal Network Agency plans to grant this protection only to projects that can demonstrate a viable investment decision by a fixed deadline. The basis is the draft regulation of 6 August 2026, whose consultation ends on 18 September 2026.

More about this in the report „AgNes Festelgungsentwurf 2026: The network tariff reform as a whole from 2029“.

What does FID mean in the AgNes context?

The Final Investment Decision is proof that a storage project represents a genuine, economically binding investment decision – and not just an optional planning option. The Federal Network Agency examines this based on two cumulative criteria:

1. Bestel quantityBinding, enforceable orders for at least 50 % % of the total investment volume
2. Binding effectWithdrawal from these orders is only possible against substantial property damage (benchmark: contractual penalty or demonstrable consequential damage ≥ approximately 25 % of the investment volume)

One binding network connection commitment is in the final draft – unlike the interim report from May 2026 – none Additional prerequisite more for the FID.

Open questions regarding interpretation

Despite the clarification in the final draft, practical-relevant questions remain unanswered:

Framework contracts with a call-out model

It is unclear whether contracts with sequential delivery of individual instalments count as “binding order” within the meaning of the % 50 threshold, or whether only fully fixed individual orders are recognized.

Range of the concept of consequential damage

It is unclear which cost items are considered verifiable consequential damage – for example, internal development costs or planning costs before the actual order is placed.

Lost net tariff exemption as a collateral damage?

Could the future network charges calculated over 20 years – which would be incurred in the event of a missed exemption – be counted as consequential damage in the 25 %-percent threshold? According to the current state of the discussion, two arguments are against:

• Causality: The resulting damage must result directly from the withdrawal from the purchase contract (contract penalties, cancellation costs, claims for damages by the supplier). The net fee obligation, on the other hand, arises regardless of the purchase contract – it is a consequence of the generally missed deadline, not of the withdrawal from the contract.
• Circularity: The loss of the privilege, the prerequisites of which are currently being demonstrated, cannot serve as proof of its fulfillment at the same time. This interpretation would automatically meet the criterion for practically every project and thus devalue it.

An explicit clarification of this point by the Federal Network Agency has not yet been provided. Therefore, the contractual proof path remains valid: contractual penalties, special arrangements without any other utilizability, and pre-rendered services already provided.

Overview of the deadline chain

The exact date of the announcement of the decision will only be determined with the decision-making process. This could be as early as December 2026. Companies should therefore not wait until the new year, but reach FID in good time with sufficient buffer time.

Action recommendations for battery storage projects

1. Determine the investable volume – as a reference point for the % 50 threshold.
2. Componets must be ordered in advance – at least 50 % % of the investment volume, binding for delivery.
3. Making contractual obligations demonstrable – Contractual penalties or consequential damages starting at around 25 % of the investment volume, causally linked to the order contract.
4. Build in risk protection – Right of withdrawal or adjustment for points beyond one’s control (e.g., network connection, permits), without undermining the binding nature of the order.
5. Achieve FID with a time buffer – preferably already documented by November/December 2026.
6. Submit proof in a timely manner – until 31.03.2027 with the connection network operator.
7. Calculate the commissioning schedule backwards – with regard to the deadline of 04.08.2029.
8. Calculating a business case with a fallback scenario – even in the event that the exemption is not secured in time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

The AgNes reform turns the current net-charge exemption into a time-limited privilege with specific proof obligations. Whether and when the Federal Network Agency will clarify the remaining interpretation questions after the consultation is currently unknown. Therefore, companies are well advised to already set up their contractual arrangements based on the current draft now – robustly and with sufficient risk mitigation – regardless of whether and when further clarifications follow.