f97.beERIK SCHMIDT’S WORKSHOP
← All terms

Glossary · Energy industry & energy transition

Incentive regulation

Incentive regulation grid fee grid operator regulation Efficiency electricity grid

Incentive regulation

Incentive regulation is a procedure for the economic regulation of electricity and gas networks. The permitted revenues of network operators are determined several years in advance under regulatory rules. They therefore do not simply follow the costs actually incurred in each period. In Germany, a revenue cap set per calendar year is central: it limits the permitted revenues from network charges and links the recognition of costs to requirements for economically efficient conduct.

The economic background is the character of the electricity grid as a natural monopoly. Several competing line networks in the same street would normally be more expensive than one shared network. Regulation is therefore meant to replace part of the competitive pressure that, in ordinary businesses, arises from competing providers. It does not, however, turn the network into a competitive market: customers generally cannot switch their local network operator the way they can switch an electricity supplier.

The incentive lies in the fact that savings on the costs borne by the operator can temporarily improve its economic position. Conversely, higher actual expenditure is not automatically reimbursed in full. This is meant to promote economical organisation, procurement and technical solutions. The revenue cap is neither a guaranteed payout nor a state guarantee of profit.

Revenue cap and network charge are not the same thing

The revenue cap describes a permitted annual revenue in euros. The network charge, by contrast, is a price for using the network, for example with an energy price in cents per kilowatt hour and, where applicable, a basic charge or capacity charge. No individual tariff can therefore be read from the revenue cap alone. For that, the revenues must be allocated to network levels, use cases and forecast billing volumes in accordance with the applicable charging rules.

A highly simplified calculation example illustrates the difference: if 100 million euros are allocated exclusively to one billion kilowatt hours, the arithmetic result is 10 cents per kilowatt hour. With only 800 million kilowatt hours, the same revenue would amount to 12.5 cents. This is not an actual tariff calculation, but it shows that a higher price per kilowatt hour does not have to result from a higher permitted total revenue.

Actual network use and forecast rarely match exactly. Volume-related revenue deviations are therefore recorded via the regulatory account and offset with a time lag. It also takes into account certain cost deviations provided for by law. However, it is not a general insurance against every cost overrun. Precisely for costs that are subject to efficiency pressure, some economic risk is meant to remain with the operator.

Cost review, efficiency benchmarking and revenue path

The starting point is a regulatory cost review based on a past base year. The competent regulatory authority does not adopt commercial-law expenses without scrutiny. Rather, it determines the cost base that is recognisable under the applicable rules. The revenue path for the regulatory period results from this. General price developments, productivity requirements, individual efficiency requirements and further adjustments affect this path.

Efficiency benchmarking is meant to separate differences arising from a demanding supply task from avoidable additional expense. Efficiency here does not simply mean low total costs, but a favourable ratio between task and resources used. An operator with long lines and few connections cannot sensibly be compared with a densely populated urban network on the basis of its costs alone. Structural characteristics must therefore be taken into account appropriately; which parameters are actually used is determined by the respective benchmarking procedure.

The incentive can be illustrated as follows: two companies are to perform a comparable task with a recognised expense of ten million euros each. If one of them organises the same service without loss of quality for 9.7 million euros, an economic advantage initially arises. Not every individual saving immediately leads to a correspondingly lower revenue cap. In later cost reviews and efficiency benchmarkings, however, lower costs can influence future revenue opportunities. The advantage is thus not unlimited in duration.

Which costs are controllable

Controllable and non-controllable costs are regulatory categories, not mere everyday assessments. Under the previous ARegV, for example, concession fees and costs of upstream networks count among the permanently non-controllable items. It also distinguishes temporarily non-controllable costs. The claim that all expenditure other than taxes and third-party invoices can be cut directly would therefore be wrong.

The delineation is economically decisive. If every new expense were passed through automatically, cost-saving alternatives would be less worthwhile. Conversely, if every additional expense were treated as avoidable inefficiency, additional statutory tasks or a changed supply task could be underfunded. Good regulation must therefore avoid both unjustified cost pass-through and unrealistic savings targets. Moreover, “not subject to efficiency benchmarking” does not mean that an expenditure is not subject to any review at all.

Investments, returns and technical alternatives

A multi-year regulatory period does not mean an investment freeze until the next cost review. For investments after the base year, there are mechanisms for taking additional capital costs into account. At the same time, declining capital costs of existing assets are taken into account. This capital cost adjustment is meant to prevent new operationally necessary assets from appearing in revenues only after a long delay, or already depreciated assets from continuing to be remunerated unchanged.

Incentive regulation and return on capital are therefore not opposites. Even an incentive-oriented system needs rules on depreciation, financing and imputed interest. It does not automatically eliminate the possible preference for capital-intensive solutions. Whether a new line, additional control technology or an operational measure is economically more attractive depends, among other things, on how investment costs and ongoing operating costs are recognised.

Network planning, by contrast, examines which equipment and measures are technically required. Revenue regulation replaces neither this planning nor required permits. It does, however, influence the economic framework of network expansion. Particularly important is the comparison with flexibility: consumption shifted in time may relieve a bottleneck more cheaply than additional lines. Such an alternative must, however, be reliably available, legally permissible and economical overall.

This can be explained using a local load peak: if a line is heavily used only during a few hours, shifting individual charging processes in time may be of interest. Where utilisation is permanently high, the same measure may be insufficient. The mere existence of digital control therefore implies neither that line construction becomes unnecessary nor that every additional line is the cheapest solution.

Quality and room for action limit cost pressure

Incentive regulation is not a mere savings programme. Omitted maintenance can reduce expenditure in the short term without actually making service provision more efficient. Quality requirements therefore form part of the regulatory framework. The law makes it possible in particular to take network reliability and network performance into account. Which indicators, surcharges or deductions and exceptions apply depends on the respective type of network operator and procedure.

Likewise, an efficiency requirement does not give the network operator additional powers of intervention. The aim of low costs does not imply that it may control consumption or feed-in at will. Economic incentives must be considered together with the separate rules on network connection, metering, congestion management and controllable consumption devices. The recognition of costs and the authority to take a technical measure answer different questions.

Germany: legal status and transition to the new framework

As of 11 November 2026, German incentive regulation is in transition. For the ongoing regulatory periods, the ARegV remains decisive; supplementary or deviating determinations must be observed. The ordinance expires at the end of 31 December 2028. A presentation that names it, without any temporal qualification, as the sole future framework is therefore outdated.

The Bundesnetzagentur issued RAMEN Strom and RAMEN Gas on 8 December 2025. Together with methodology determinations and further determinations, they form the new framework from the NEST process. This shapes the fifth regulatory period from 1 January 2028 in the gas sector and from 1 January 2029 for electricity distribution networks. The changeover does not end the principle of incentive regulation but further develops its design.

The scope must be carefully distinguished: RAMEN Strom concerns electricity distribution system operators, not all electricity network operators across the board. For transmission system operators there is a separate regulatory strand. RAMEN Gas covers gas distribution and transmission system operators but excludes closed distribution networks. Hydrogen networks must not simply be equated with the regulated natural gas network. Special procedures exist for smaller operators; the micro-network-operator rule sets additional conditions and requires its introduction by the competent authority.

Significance for the energy transition and network costs

The central trade-off remains: network operators should be able to finance necessary infrastructure in good time, while network users are protected from inefficient expenditure. Too tight a recognition can hinder sensible measures; too generous a recognition can favour unnecessary costs. Rising network charges therefore prove, in themselves, neither a failure of regulation nor the inefficiency of an operator.

For proper assessment, cost base, investments, financing, upstream network costs, usage developments and cost allocation must be considered together. Incentive regulation cannot make the physical transformation of the networks free of cost. Its aim is both narrower and more demanding: the required service is to be provided with an appropriate use of resources, viable investment conditions and reliable quality.

Sources

Related glossary entries

Edited by eCMS on 11.11.2026 13:43

© 2026 Erik Schmidt. All rights reserved. Quotations with a link to the source are welcome.