Standardised metering contracts from 2026: what BK6-24-125 means for the basic metering operator

What BK6-24-125 sets: three standard contracts

The BNetzA decision-making chamber 6 adopted the ruling BK6-24-125 on 20 November 2025, with the contracts becoming binding from 1 July 2026. What used to be a set of non-binding association templates becomes a fixed standard: for the first time the regulator sets how the central contracts in electricity metering have to look.

Three contract sets are set, all for electricity. The first is the revised framework contract, the MSB-RV, between the network operator and the metering point operator (MSB). The second is the new metering contract with connected users, the MSV-AN. The third is the new metering contract with suppliers, the MSV-LF. The two metering contracts are genuinely new, while the framework contract is a reworked version of the document the market already knew.

Alongside the three contracts the ruling adds a form under Section 54 MsbG, which governs the data communication that goes with the contracts. Taken together, these documents make the previously non-binding templates of the associations into mandatory standard contracts, so the parties no longer negotiate the core text but use a set framework.

The scope is deliberately limited. BK6-24-125 covers electricity only. For gas the corresponding ground is still held by the cooperation agreement, so the standardisation set out here does not reach into the gas sector. That keeps the change focused on the electricity metering market, where the rollout volume and the contract count are highest.

Who is bound: gMSB, network operators and wMSB

The obligation is graded. This is the point that is most often misread, because not every market participant is bound in the same way.

Network operators and basic metering point operators (gMSB) are fully bound. They have to use the standard contracts as set, which is where the weight of the changeover falls, since the basic operator carries the bulk of the installed base and of the end-customer relationships in its area.

The framework contract and the metering contracts do not bind the same circle. Every metering point operator (MSB) must conclude the framework contract MSB-RV with the network operator, whether it is a basic or a competitive operator, because that contract governs the relationship with the network. The metering contracts MSV-AN and MSV-LF, by contrast, are mandatory only for the gMSB.

A competitive metering point operator (wMSB) is therefore in a lighter position. It is bound to the framework contract like everyone else, but it is not obliged to use the standard metering contracts with connected users and suppliers. It may adopt the templates voluntarily, which can still be useful for a clean and recognisable contract base, but it is free to shape those relationships differently.

The new penalty and the amendment regime

Two changes alter contract practice the most: a flat contractual penalty and an automatic amendment regime that reaches into the running contract.

The new contractual penalty is a flat 10 cents gross per day and metering point. It applies for a culpable breach of material process or data obligations, and it is symmetric, so it is owed by both the network operator and the MSB. The penalty does not trigger on every slip: the claim arises only for material breaches, and only after the party at fault has been given a chance to remedy the problem first.

The second change is the amendment regime. Future ruling-driven changes become part of the contract automatically, without a fresh explicit amendment agreement between the parties. The safeguard is procedural rather than negotiated: the parties have to be informed at least two months in advance, and the changed contract is published online. This keeps the standard contracts current across the market without each pair of parties having to renegotiate every time the regulator moves.

Finally, the contracts introduce a metering-point-specific termination for the first time. Instead of having to terminate the whole contract, a party can now end the arrangement for single metering points. That gives both sides a much finer instrument and changes how disputes and migrations can be handled in practice.

The changeover by 1 July 2026

For basic metering point operators this is a mammoth task. With the end-customer contracts it can reach into potentially millions of contracts per operator, and the deadline is fixed.

Existing contracts have to be converted by 1 July 2026 and the contracts have to be published online. For the gMSB this means moving the entire portfolio onto the new standard documents within a tight window, while keeping the contractual relationships intact throughout.

The form requirements are kept light to make the volume manageable. Conclusion in text form suffices, and acceptance can run by email, through a portal or via a QR code. An implied conclusion under Section 9(3) MsbG is also possible, with a confirmation in text form, so the operator does not depend on an active signature from every connected user to put the new contract in place.

• Convert and publish by the deadline: move existing contracts onto the standard documents by 1 July 2026 and publish them online.
• Text form is enough: conclusion in text form suffices, with acceptance by email, portal or QR code.
• Implied conclusion is possible: an implied conclusion under Section 9(3) MsbG works, with a confirmation in text form.
• Mind the termination variant: the amendment-and-termination route carries a risk of contract-less periods, so the deadlines have to be planned carefully.

The biggest operational risk is the changeover variant. If an operator chooses to terminate the old contract and conclude a new one, a gap can open between the two, a contract-less period that has to be avoided. Planning the deadlines so that the new contract is in force before the old one ends is therefore central to a clean changeover.

Legal basis, the WiM link and non-discrimination

The ruling does not stand alone. It fills out the MsbG and meshes with the market change processes, while leaving one point deliberately to the statute.

The legal basis is Section 9, Section 34(1) and Section 54 MsbG, and the subject of the contracts is restricted to standard services. The standard contracts cover the standardised core of metering, not the individually agreed special services, so the regulated text and the freely negotiated part stay separate.

One point is easy to get wrong: non-discrimination is statutory. It is anchored in Section 8(2) MsbG, and an explicit contract clause for non-discrimination was deliberately dropped from the standard contracts. The effect is that non-discrimination is not newly created by BK6-24-125. It continues to apply by force of the statute, and leaving it out of the contract text avoids duplicating what the law already secures.

On the process side, the ruling amends Annex 3 of the WiM ruling, while the MSB change itself still runs under WiM. The standard contracts refer dynamically to WiM and to GPKE in their respective applicable versions, so the contracts stay aligned with the market processes as those evolve. The contract standardisation here is therefore best read together with the wider WiM and metering changes and the ongoing smart meter rollout, which together set the operational backdrop against which these contracts now run.

What companies should do now

Whoever sorts the contract portfolio early and hardens the processes avoids the penalty and contract-less periods. The deadline is tight, so the preparation should start with the inventory and the changeover decision.

• Inventory the contract portfolio and choose the changeover variant. Take stock of the existing contracts and decide between a fresh conclusion and an amendment-and-termination route, so the path to the new standard documents is clear before the work starts.
• Set up acceptance channels and prepare publication. Put the acceptance routes in place, by email, portal and QR code, and prepare the online publication of the contracts, because both are part of the conversion by 1 July 2026.
• Harden master-data and WiM and GPKE processes against the penalty. Tighten the master-data quality and the WiM and GPKE process steps, since material process or data breaches are exactly what triggers the symmetric 10-cent penalty.
• Prepare for the automatic amendment regime and metering-point-specific termination. Set up the internal handling so that ruling-driven changes flow into the contracts automatically and so that single metering points can be terminated cleanly when needed.

Further reading

Frequently asked questions