Another needless threat to the ecosystems we all depend on: The Commission’s panicky, chaotic deregulation drive has to stop

It includes a Communication; a draft Directive on acceleration of permit-granting procedures for renewable energy, batteries and grid infrastructure,[1] and a draft Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (TEN-E), also weakening environmental permitting.[2]

The decision to re-open the Renewable Energy Directive is surprising as it was changed in 2023, and already eroded environmental safeguards. The final transposition deadline was in May this year, yet by July only Denmark had fully transposed it. The Commission started infringement procedures against the other 26 Member States. Although the 2023 Directive is problematic, the rationale for re-opening it half way through transposition is unclear. Even industry has called for more stability: Solar Power Europe has asked the Commission to prioritise implementation of existing EU rules rather than pursuing deregulation.

Among the most controversial provisions in the Commission’s new proposals are:

• A new paragraph that tries to prevent no-go zones for renewables but in fact undermines the whole concept of protected natural areas. Member States are to ‘endeavour not to designate large areas where the installation of renewable energy plants and their related infrastructure is legally or de facto restricted due to environmental reasons (…)’.[3]  But the whole point of protected areas is to restrict certain types of activities: why would hydropower plants be allowed in National Parks or wind parks in old-growth forests? Among others, this contradicts the principle that Member States may introduce stricter environmental protection measures than EU law requires.[4]
• An existing assumption [5] that renewables and grids are of overriding public interest for when carrying out assessments under the Habitats, Birds and Water Framework Directives is set to be widened. This provision is already highly problematic as a declaration of overriding public interest is needed for only a few of the most damaging projects with significant impacts on protected natural areas. The new proposal would stop Member States being able to restrict the application of this provision in certain parts of their territory and would widen the assumption of overriding public interest to enable land expropriation and other areas of law, except cultural heritage.
• If satisfactory alternative solutions exist, projects with severe impacts on protected natural areas are – appropriately – currently not allowed to proceed. But the new proposals would restrict the examination of alternatives to the same energy technology as the proposed project. This makes no sense, as it would mean a high-impact technology like hydropower or biomass would not have to be compared to a lower-impact one like solar.
• The draft TEN-E allows many cross-border electricity transmission projects and storage facilities to be exempted from environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and appropriate assessments under the Habitats Directive if they are part of National Development Plans that have been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs). Similar provisions are already in place for renewable projects but SEAs are less detailed than EIAs and are unlikely to be an adequate substitute. Among others, this deprives the public of a major consultation opportunity during project development. While new obligations to designate and finance an independent facilitator to promote dialogue between the project developer and the general public may be a useful complement, they cannot replace structured and science-based processes like the EIA and appropriate assessments.

Quotes

Pippa Gallop, Southeast Europe energy policy officer, CEE Bankwatch Network: 

‘Sustainable renewables and grids are crucial, but re-opening the Renewable Energy Directive is not. The ink has barely dried on the 2023 changes, so revising them already is a tacit admission that they were poorly done. But rather than undoing the damage, the Grids Package digs an even deeper hole into the EU’s well-balanced environmental safeguards. The European Parliament and Council must finally say no and put a stop to this manic deregulation drive.’

Gligor Radečić, Gas campaign leader, CEE Bankwatch Network: 

‘Certain proposed amendments to the TEN-E Regulation concerning the acceleration of permitting raise serious concerns: they lack scientific grounding, conflict with EU environmental law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU, and could prove legally problematic, as in the case of tacit approval mechanisms.’

Contacts

Pippa Gallop
Southeast Europe energy policy officer
CEE Bankwatch Network
pippa.gallop@bankwatch.org

Gligor Radečić
Gas campaign leader
CEE Bankwatch Network
gligor.radecic@bankwatch.org 

[1]  This would amend: 

• the Renewable Energy Directive ((EU) 2018/2001); 
• the Electricity Market Directive ((EU) 2019/944); 
• the Directive on gas markets and hydrogen ((EU) 2024/1788) and 
• the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive ((EU) 2024/1275).

[2] This would amend:

• Regulation (EU) 2019/942, establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators;  
• the Electricity Market Regulation (EU) 2019/943; 
• the gas markets and hydrogen Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 
• and would repeal the current Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure ((EU) 2022/869) on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure.

[3]  ‘(…), unless they can demonstrate that those types of plants and their related infrastructure would result in irreversible damage in the area which cannot be mitigated or compensated for during the environmental assessment pursuant to Directive 2011/92/EU and, where relevant, the appropriate assessment pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC’.

[4] Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

[5] ‘rebuttable presumption’ i.e. it is presumed, but can be disproved during the assessment process. However, the burden of proof is on the public to prove likely harm instead of on the project promoter to prove a lack of harm.