Thank you for the response. However, after some investigation, I think the issue might lie elsewhere. It is quite strange that after almost a year of retrieving the same tables, there are suddenly problems with the limits (with an exceedance of 500%).
This led me to suspect that something is going wrong in the calculation of the number of seconds used per day. For this reason, I have turned off the refresh in recent days so that we can start the day with the limits at 0%. Then I started testing in Power Query, which applies a limit of 1000 rows to tables, to see how high the limits would be when retrieving a number of tables (these were not executed in parallel). Loading these tables took quite a long time, and I deliberately did not complete one to avoid blowing up the limits. Then I made an Excel output of the bridge online monitoring:

The bridge online monitoring indicates that 579 seconds have been refreshed. But when I then looked at the limits, there was a value of 1677 seconds.

Then I tried to retrieve the table Teamleader.V2.Companies@tlr. No transformations were done on this table, only a filtering on the retrieved columns to retrieve as little data as possible. This took 20 seconds for 900 rows.
Upon a second look at the bridge online monitoring, I saw that in the background, the table I did not want to load was executed with a ‘top 1000’ statement. This resulted in values between 200,000 and 500,000 ms, while few transformations are performed in these tables.
I eventually retrieved a top 1000 from 5 tables. After a second output of the monitoring, I ended up with approximately 2000 seconds. I find this quite high for a top 1000 of 5 tables:

Strangely enough, the monitoring displays the wrong number:

Can you check what is going wrong here?
And to return to this response from you:
‘switching to a subscription model with more parallel downloads. Usually, this can be done by switching to the current 2025 Invantive Office subscription model. This increases the number of channels from 4 to 6, but limits the number of partitions for the same amount to 25’
Are there additional costs associated with this? Since we only retrieve a small number of partitions, it is more desirable to use more channels.
I look forward to hearing from you.