Five countries pushed back against the European Commission’s plans over what they see as an increasingly centralised vision for planning Europe’s future electricity, according to a document seen by Euronews.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Bulgaria, Finland, France, Poland and Sweden argue that the European Union’s green transition risks becoming slower, more expensive and less secure if Brussels attempts to command grid development from the centre. Instead, they are proposing a Europe of coordinated regions rather than a fully centralised energy union.
“An exclusive focus on a top-down approach would hinder the (Grids) Package’s objective. We alternatively suggest that the regional planning and evaluation approach be strengthened and extended upon,’ reads the document.
The Commission launched a legislative proposal to overhaul the grids in December, calling for stronger coordination in revising the EU’s law governing trans-European energy infrastructure, including the creation of a “central scenario” to guide long-term investment across EU countries.
The five-country coalition argues that such an approach misunderstands how energy systems actually function on the ground. They say that the energy infrastructure is too complex, too regionally specific and too politically sensitive to be designed through a single Brussels-led model.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU has accelerated efforts to boost energy security by electrifying industry and integrating renewable power at an unprecedented speed. That sense of urgency has empowered the Commission to seek stronger strategic oversight, triggering heightened national sensitivities around sovereignty, industrial competitiveness and public costs.
Rejecting a top-down approach
The signatories argue that national companies responsible for operating the high-voltage electricity grid and regional authorities have the operational knowledge needed to identify real bottlenecks, security vulnerabilities and investment priorities.
A Commission-led control, they say, could produce infrastructure that looks efficient in theory but proves economically wasteful in practice.
“A single scenario wrongly assumes that there is only one way to achieve energy and climate policy objectives,” reads the document.
The countries fear a future in which massive interconnectors are built without adequate alignment to domestic grid reinforcements, leaving expensive infrastructure underused while consumers absorb the cost through higher electricity bills.
The national companies responsible for energy transmission, such as the French Réseau de Transport d’Électricité or the Swedish Svenska kraftnät, should remain the technical architects of planning, while the Commission should act primarily as coordinator rather than director, the letter suggests.
Sweden has emerged as one of the most outspoken EU countries against the Commission’s power grid plan. Recently, Stockholm announced plans to halt construction of a new power cable to Denmark, in response to the Commission’s proposal to use revenues from electricity congestion charges to revamp the bloc’s electricity infrastructure.
“The EU should not receive Swedes’ electricity money. At the moment, Brussels is not listening to us. That’s why we are pausing plans for new cables for power exports,” Swedish energy minister Ebba Busch said on 11 May.
Revenues from electricity congestion are the excess funds generated when power lines reach capacity, which are then recycled back into building better infrastructure or lowering consumer fees, the EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators explained.
Busch said the legislative text, currently under negotiation, still restricts member states’ use of congestion revenues more than the current law does. The Swedish government is also considering whether to proceed with new cables to Finland, Busch added.
Battle for institutional power
The upcoming negotiations over the so-called Grids Package, which unveiled a €1.2 trillion investment by 2040 to revamp power infrastructure, go far beyond grids and cables. They are becoming a test of how the EU balances strategic coordination with national control in the era of climate transition.
The five countries claim the Commission is moving beyond coordination and edging towards political control over investment planning. Particularly controversial is the idea that Brussels could initiate projects outside existing national planning mechanisms — a red line for the signatories.
They insist that EU countries must retain political authority over energy choices, especially regarding national energy mixes and strategic infrastructure priorities.
“The division of responsibilities must be clear: member states must retain political decision-making powers, European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSOs) and Transmission System Operators (TSOs) must provide their technical expertise and knowledge of the energy grids and the Commission must ensure coordination and dialogue with the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN) groups,” reads the document.
However, the five EU countries are not rejecting European coordination altogether. They back cross-border cooperation and recognise the need for interconnected infrastructure to achieve decarbonisation and energy security, according to the document.
‘Critical’ political talks
MEP Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D/Bulgaria), who is leading the legislative file in the European Parliament, broadly backs a more centralised EU-level energy infrastructure planning system, although it also tries to preserve some national input and transparency safeguards.
“The rapporteur supports the Commission’s move towards a stronger Union-level planning architecture based on a central scenario, infrastructure-needs identification and a more harmonised cost-benefit analysis,” reads Penkova’s draft report published on 24 April.
The EU Cyprus Presidency, currently mediating political files among the 27 EU countries, has already taken into account “many changes to the text to reflect their concerns and needs”, a spokesperson told Euronews.
“We are now moving toward a balanced compromise, and importantly, we are close to reaching an agreement,” the spokesperson of the Cyprus Presidency added, underlining “how critical the file” is.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has recently urged the EU co-legislators, the Council and the Parliament, to speed up a political agreement on the Grids Package before the summer.
However, due to political infighting, with countries needing interconnecting funding versus net contributors worried about redistribution, the file is more likely to be pushed to the upcoming EU Irish Presidency, taking the helm on 1 July.
