From renewables stuck in connection queues to data centres waiting years to plug in, Europe’s power system is under strain. In this edition of 3 Questions, we speak with Elisabeth Cremona from Ember about why grids have become the backbone of EU competitiveness, security and decarbonisation.
1. Looking at the EU Action Plan for Grids in 2023, the Draghi report in 2024 and now the European Grid Package in 2025, why do EU policy makers pay so much attention to electricity cables?
The EU has big ambitions for competitiveness, security and decarbonisation - and grids are the crucial (yet often overlooked) infrastructure that underpins all three. In 2025, solar and wind generated more electricity than fossil sources, and renewables continue to surge ahead as the EU champions clean, cheap homegrown power to improve security and affordability. At the same time, electricity demand is rising as new loads connect - data centres bringing new economic opportunities and electrification in heating and transport becoming increasingly attractive to consumers. These developments are entirely dependent on being able to plug into the power grid. But right now, Europe simply does not have enough network capacity where it's needed.
Grid development has not kept up with how quickly the system is changing, and the consequences have become visible: gigawatts of renewables stuck in grid connection queues, technology companies relocating due to long connection timelines, and billions spent each year to balance congested grids. Policy makers have realised something needs to change, which is why targeted interventions have moved to the top of the EU agenda.
2. The EU institutions, national governments, grid operators of different voltage levels and regulators all need to cooperate closely to run and expand our energy networks. You recently boiled down the complex planning and permitting processes to a remarkable infographic in London tube map style. What do you recommend for simplifying our energy infrastructure policies?
People typically think about the power system in compartmentalised parts — generation, demand, batteries, national grids, interconnectors and so on. But in reality, it operates as a single, balanced system, where every component interacts with the others. Unfortunately, most European countries still plan their power systems through siloed exercises that are never brought together into one coherent picture of the future. In the tube map analogy, each line represents a different planning process — but instead of them all arriving at the same final destination, they head in different directions. This risks overinvestment in solutions that could have been avoided.
This is best illustrated through an example: integrating 10 GW of new wind and solar in the northeast of a country. This challenge could be met in several ways – building new transmission lines, extending the lifetime of nearby gas turbines, adding flexibility through demand-side response or battery storage, or a combination of all three. Only an integrated assessment can identify which mix of actions is the most cost-effective option - which is why we strongly recommend EU countries streamline, align and integrate their planning processes. The UK’s Strategic Spatial Energy Planning approach provides an excellent example of how this can be done in practice.
3. Does the European Grid Package seek to amend grid planning and what will change as a result?
The Package includes a proposed revision of the Trans-European energy infrastructure (TEN-E) Regulation which introduces some changes to grid planning - but the scope is narrower than many headlines suggest. The proposal would only affect how Europe plans its cross-border transmission infrastructure - national transmission and distribution planning remains governed by the Electricity Market Directive and is therefore unchanged.
Under the proposal, the scenario used to plan interconnectors and cross-border pipelines would be developed by the European Commission and Joint Research Centre (JRC) - rather than by the European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSOs) as is currently the case. Identification of infrastructure needs would still be carried out by the ENTSOs. Whether this shift in scenario ownership will actually resolve today’s core challenge — insufficiently integrated modelling across the power sector and other energy carriers (hydrogen and gas) — will depend far more on implementation than on the legal text itself. That being said, this does represent a step towards more independent planning, avoiding the impact of vested interests on scenarios which determine the direction of investments.
The proposed revision also takes a meaningful step forward on non-wire options and flexibility - these are solutions that can increase grid capacity in a much shorter time than traditional grid build. These need to be considered in the identification of infrastructure needs and can now qualify for the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list. If done well, this could also set an important precedent for national planning, where grid-enhancing technologies and other non-wire options are still rarely reflected in network plans despite existing requirements to consider them.
The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.
