During the energy crisis, a Dutch energy supplier encountered difficulties when a grower shut down his cultivation business in the fourth quarter of 2022. Both parties had agreed that the cultivation company would neither purchase gas nor supply electricity, but when the time came, ambiguity arose about what exactly had been agreed upon.
The courts had to intervene, and the grower was largely vindicated. As the party mostly at fault, the energy supplier was ordered to pay the grower more than 440 thousand euros.
Forgotten clause
Both parties had agreements regarding the delivery of natural gas, which allowed the grower the option to buy less natural gas and deliver it back at the daily price. With a zero clause, the energy supplier was protected against having to pay back too much when the gas was returned.
In the summer of 2022, the two parties made new agreements because the cucumber-growing company with CHP had decided to shut down the business in the fourth quarter of 2022. However, the court found that the energy company forgot to include the earlier clause that covered its own risks. When the company attempted to revert to the clause in the autumn of 2022, it was too late, according to the judge.
Profit from selling back natural gas
The cultivation company ended up profiting from the unusual market situation in 2022. By selling the unused natural gas—over 347 thousand cubic meters—a total of 688 thousand euros was earned. After offsetting the missed revenues for electricity feed-in following CHP generation, 309 thousand euros remained, according to the grower's energy consultant. The supplier agreed with that amount.
In addition to this amount, the cultivation company is also seeking compensation for the early termination of the agreement with the supplier, who has since left the market in the Netherlands as of 2023. The cultivation company also wants compensation for several months in 2022 for which the supplier had not yet paid. During the trial, it was revealed that there was a measurement error for electricity supplied back to the grower, and the offsetting of amounts during invoicing did not always go smoothly. The judge assumes that both parties will resolve the billing discrepancies themselves.
Although the court ordered the energy supplier to pay another substantial amount, the grower also bears some responsibility, according to the 31 July court ruling. The judge noted that the agreement was clear, but the grower also realized too late that there were invoicing issues and problems with the agreements made.
This case is not an isolated one. During the energy crisis, similar problems frequently arose that, either immediately or after court intervention, made headlines.