European Parliament wants to give Europe a grid fit for the electro-era

The Parliament’s ITRE Committee today voted in favour of ambitious grids planning rules, that would allow the bloc’s solar, wind and hydro power to flow where and when it’s needed.

The Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation sets out how cross-border electricity grids are planned and built at a European level. 

Late last year the European Commission proposed to strengthen these rules  – and specifically to start planning European grids around a commonly-agreed vision of what infrastructure is needed to meet its energy and climate objectives. 

The Parliament has doubled-down on the Commission’s approach, proposing a ‘common Union strategic scenario’ and calling for an acceleration of the Commission’s original timeframe. 

MEPs are also looking at what comes after the common scenario.  

They call on the Commission to examine whether to establish a permanent and independent European system planner as part of a future review. Parliamentarians are also proposing a ‘Comprehensive framework assessment’ which would start planning the architecture of Europe’s energy system out to 2050. 

Donagh Cagney, EU Policy Director for Supergrid Europe said: 

“Today’s European Parliament vote is further proof - Europe is now being forged by fossil fuel crises.”

The latest energy security crisis has empowered members of the European Parliament to look beyond national squabbles. What they see is a secure, affordable and clean electricity system, built on energy independence and a pan-European system logic. 

Europe has an abundance of solar, wind and hydro power, but we need the wires to fully harness that resource. If adopted, this regulation would help us do just that.

Now it’s up to the Council to face down national interests, and deliver a governance-framework for a future-proof grid that works for all Europeans.”

Annex

The positives

Union strategic scenario – Article 11 (previously the ‘central scenario’) 

• The Parliament wants the Union strategic scenario completed one year after the TEN-E Regulation enters into force, instead of the two years proposed by the Commission. It also wants to update the Union strategic scenario every two years, instead of every four years, as proposed by the Commission.  

• The Parliament calls for the scenario creation process to be more transparent, including the use of open data provision. This is good for governance, good for energy stakeholders, and good for the legitimacy of future scenarios. 

Innovation (Article 2) 

• The Parliament introduces definitions of ‘non-wire solutions’ and ‘grid enhancing technologies’, while differentiating between innovative ‘wire’ and ‘non-wire’ solutions. Lawmakers also propose that grid operators are required to take into account grid enhancing technologies when identifying future infrastructure needs. Current EU legislation inadvertently excludes many of the technologies that can alleviate the pressure on grids in a short time.  

Governance arrangements 

• The Parliament wants ACER (The Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators) to have greater oversight over ‘Infrastructure Needs Assessment Report’ (Article 12). This report sets out what grid projects are needed, given the commonly-agreed scenario. Stronger regulatory oversight of this process is welcome. 

• The Parliament correctly requires the Commission to be more transparent and more active in the ‘Needs matching process’ (Article 13) This process identifies where there are gaps between system needs and actually-proposed grid projects. 

 Looking to the future

• The Parliament calls for the Commission’s to explicitly consider the role and functioning of an independent European system planner, in its review of the TEN-E Regulation (Article 25). Separation of system ownership and operation, combined with European-level planning, will be key step to give Europe the grid it needs. 

• The Parliament proposes a new ‘Comprehensive framework assessment’ (Article 14a) which builds upon the common scenario, infrastructure needs assessment and needs matching process. While the Commission would initially undertake this exercise, it is an undertaking which would fit well within any future independent European system planner.  

The Negative

• The Parliament has added numerous references to ‘low-carbon’ generation or energy sources throughout the text. These terms are not defined in EU law, but are understood to potentially include gas power with carbon capture. Europe’s energy system will be renewables-based, and to ensure competitiveness, long-term infrastructure planning should reflect this.