European Parliament’s two draft reports on the ‘networks’ package have been published. The compromise on the TEN-E Regulation governing trans-European energy infrastructure, steered by Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D, Bulgarian), is due to be put to the vote in September. The report from Niels Fuglsang (S&D, Danish), on permit granting, has been brought forward to 24 June. Originally, the two texts were to be voted on the same day.
The TEN-E Regulation, as presented by the European Commission on 10 December 2025, provides for the centralisation of electricity grid planning in order to create an ‘Energy Union’ (see EUROPE 13767/4).
Electricity prices at heart of report. Tsvetelina Penkova has incorporated changes compared with the European Commission’s initial proposal; these are intended in particular to ensure that electricity prices for consumers do not rise disproportionately and that price differences between electricity bidding zones are reduced.
The report also specifies that “congestion income resulting from internal bidding zone borders within a Member State is not subject to the obligations under Article 19”. A central point for Sweden, which is fiercely opposed to the use of 25% of Member States’ congestion income for cross-border projects. Instead, this congestion income could be reinvested in the country that collected it, according to the report.
Moreover, the text retains the possibility of including hydrogen and gas in addition to electricity, unlike the conclusions of the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU, which met last week (see EUROPE 13871/19).
Central approach retained, but framed. The report preserves the European Commission’s central role in identifying cross-border infrastructure needs, whereas the Council opposes this in favour of regional and European energy infrastructure operators (ENTSO-E, ENTSOG, ENNOH).
However, the Bulgarian socialist adds a transparency clause requiring the European Commission to publish this information.
She also adds that the scenario should be based on the national energy and climate plans, a request that echoes that of the Council of the EU (see EUROPE 13870/7), while ensuring their comparability at European Union level.
An amendment has also been added so that projects of common interest designated as priorities are examined both at European and national level “before any final investment decision is taken”.
This is therefore a compromise between the very high degree of centralisation provided for in the European Commission’s proposal and the regional approach favoured by around 15 Member States, which oppose a top-down approach to electricity grid planning.
Tsvetelina Penkova “supports the Commission’s initiative to establish a stronger planning architecture at Union level, based on a central scenario, identification of infrastructure needs and a more harmonised cost-benefit analysis”.
“However, the report seeks to ensure that these elements do not amount merely to formal planning exercises”, she writes.
Read the report: https://aeur.eu/f/m2h (Original version in French by Nadège Delépine)