Plenary Paper – Powering Europe with Reliable, Clean and Smart Energy

Ave supports the EU’s electricity grid upgrade by prioritising dispatchable, decarbonised, and continuous energy sources—such as nuclear and urban solar—enabled by smart grids and digitalisation.

Our contributor @FalkD21 reviews the current 2025/2006(INI) procedure on “Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system,” presenting its content, the amendments introduced in committee, and the final text adopted in plenary. He concludes his analysis by outlining a proposed energy mix for a resilient electrification strategy—challenging the role of onshore wind, advocating for a decentralised solar model, and supporting nuclear power as a carbon-free, continuous, and dispatchable baseload source.

The European Parliament is calling for an urgent overhaul of Europe’s electricity grids to meet climate goals, strengthen energy security, and stay competitive in a changing global economy. As electricity use is expected to increase by 60% by 2030—and with over 40% of local power lines and equipment already outdated—the European Union must invest an estimated €584 billion by the end of the decade to upgrade both high-voltage transmission lines and lower-voltage distribution networks that bring power to homes and businesses.

To keep up with this rising demand, the Parliament outlines several key priorities. These include better integration of renewable energy sources, the widespread rollout of digital “smart grids” that can balance supply and demand in real time, and greater flexibility in how energy systems operate. It also calls for updating outdated regulations—such as the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E), which govern cross-border energy infrastructure, and the rules that determine how new energy projects connect to the grid.

To ensure better coordination across borders, the Parliament wants stronger oversight from the EU’s energy regulatory body, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). Financially, the resolution warns that current funding tools are not enough. It calls for significantly boosting the Connecting Europe Facility for Energy (CEF-E), which helps finance key energy projects, and making better use of EU regional development funds. A new funding system using money from emissions trading (the EU’s carbon pricing scheme) is also proposed to fill existing investment gaps.

The Parliament stresses the importance of planning ahead—investing early in technologies and infrastructure that will be needed in the coming decades. It underlines the need for common technical standards, strong protections against cyber threats, and training the workforce for the future—anticipating that energy-related jobs could increase by 50% by 2030.

Special attention is also given to offshore energy infrastructure, especially in the North Seas, which are crucial for wind and marine power projects. The resolution supports closer energy cooperation with nearby non-EU countries like the United Kingdom and Norway. Finally, to speed up progress, EU Member States are encouraged to fully enforce existing laws, cut red tape in project approvals, and involve citizens and communities in transparent, inclusive grid planning.

1- Presentation of the next

The motion for a European Parliament resolution on electricity grids, entitled “the backbone of the European Union’s energy system” (2025/2006(INI)), sets out an ambitious and determined position in response to the critical challenges posed by the modernisation of electric infrastructure as part of the EU’s energy transition. The text reflects a clear intention to make electricity grids not only a pillar of the EU’s decarbonisation strategy, but also a strategic lever for industrial competitiveness, energy sovereignty, and the continent’s security of supply.

The resolution recognises that electricity grids are central to the shift towards a carbon-neutral economy. They form the essential backbone for integrating renewable energy, supporting the increasing electrification of key sectors, and maintaining the stability of an open, safe, and affordable internal electricity market. With electricity demand expected to rise significantly, the Union will have to invest heavily in its transmission and distribution infrastructure, with estimated needs of nearly EUR 584 billion by 2030, and up to EUR 2.6 trillion by 2050.

The text highlights several major obstacles to be overcome. It underscores growing grid congestion and the increasing number of curtailments — forced reductions in renewable electricity generation — caused by insufficient transmission capacity. Administrative delays in permitting, underuse of existing EU funding, inadequate digitalisation, shortages of skilled labour, and fragile supply chains are all identified as compounding factors that hinder the transformation of the energy system. The resolution also stresses the rising risks to cybersecurity and the physical resilience of critical infrastructure in the face of climate and geopolitical threats.

In response, Members of the European Parliament call for a rapid scale-up in investments aimed at grid modernisation. They advocate for the widespread deployment of ‘smart grid technologies’, which can better manage demand-side flexibility, integrate advanced digital tools, and strengthen the resilience of existing infrastructure. Better coordination of twenty-year development plans, aligned with national energy and climate plans, is deemed essential for maximising system efficiency.

From a regulatory perspective, the resolution calls for a reform of the TEN-E Regulation1 to strengthen European-level planning, facilitate the integration of cross-border projects, and provide easier access for smaller entities such as distribution system operators. It supports a stronger role for the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) in assessing grid development scenarios, and calls for an end to the “first-come, first-served” connection model, in favour of criteria based on project quality, maturity, and societal or climate value.

The document also emphasises the need to reform the financing framework. The Connecting Europe Facility for Energy2 (CEF-E) should be significantly reinforced, with a larger share allocated to distribution grids, which remain underfunded despite their growing importance. The resolution recommends establishing a dedicated funding instrument for decentralised innovation, improving access to regional funds, and simplifying procedures for small operators. It also calls for the promotion of anticipatory investments through a more harmonised regulatory framework and appropriate risk-sharing mechanisms.

Skills and workforce challenges are addressed emphatically: the expansion of the grid will require a 50% increase in the sector’s workforce by 2030. Training, reskilling, gender balance, and support for technical education are identified as priorities to ensure the security of Europe’s industrial capacities. In parallel, MEPs stress the importance of reinforcing supply chains, standardising components, and ensuring secure and diversified access to critical raw materials such as copper and aluminium.

Particular attention is given to the development of offshore electricity grids. European seas — especially the North Seas — are seen as strategic enablers for the deployment of offshore wind and hybrid interconnections. Cooperation with partners such as the United Kingdom and Norway is encouraged to ensure better regional integration of these energy sources. A stable regulatory framework, the security of subsea cables, and system interoperability are viewed as essential conditions for their successful development.

A- Recitals

The recitals (A–V) in this motion for a European Parliament resolution serve to build the rationale and urgency behind the Parliament’s call to action on upgrading and modernising EU electricity grids. An analytical breakdown of these recitals, paragraph by paragraph, reveal with their roles and interconnections in the broader policy framework.

These recitals collectively diagnose systemic issues across infrastructure, planning, investment, and governance; highlight missed opportunities in flexibility, participation, and funding; introduce legal and strategic obligations (TEN-E, energy efficiency, cybersecurity, etc.).

Each recital builds a layer of justification, linking technical, economic, regulatory, environmental, and geopolitical concerns into a multifaceted narrative that underpins the Parliament’s recommendations. They’re crafted to provide political momentum and policy coherence for transforming Europe’s electricity grid into a resilient, future-proof, and fully integrated backbone of the EU’s clean energy economy.

Recitals A–C: Establishing the Problem

These first three paragraphs lay the foundation by asserting that electricity grids are critical to the clean energy transition, and current inefficiencies are hampering progress. Recital A underscores the central role of grids in economic growth and renewable energy deployment. Recital B builds on this by stressing the magnitude of investment needed to adapt grids to a decarbonised and digital energy system. Recital C focuses on connectivity issues—specifically grid bottlenecks and inadequate interconnections—causing overproduction and curtailment of renewables in some areas while others face high prices and energy scarcity. Together, these establish the structural mismatch between renewable capacity and grid capability.

Recital D: Offshore Integration Challenge

Recital D zooms in on offshore renewable energy, noting the responsibility of Transmission System Operators (TSOs) in integrating offshore resources. It introduces fairness and market functioning principles—including compensation mechanisms funded by congestion revenues—to stress the financial risks of underperforming interconnectors. This helps justify shared financial and planning responsibility across borders.

Recitals E–F: Planning Imperatives

These two recitals emphasize the need for coordinated grid planning. Recital E highlights that only a pan-European approach can meet decarbonisation goals, while Recital F calls for synchronised transmission and distribution planning to support system-wide efficiency. They set the groundwork for later calls for more integrated governance and cross-border coordination.

Recital G: Legacy Infrastructure

Recital G addresses the incompatibility of the current grid architecture—built for centralised fossil-based systems—with today’s distributed, digital and renewable-heavy electricity landscape. It justifies the need for systemic grid modernisation.

Recital H: Interconnectors as Enablers

By reinforcing the role of cross-border interconnections in enhancing system flexibility, cost efficiency, and security, this recital positions interconnectors as both economic and strategic infrastructure. It strengthens the case for investment prioritisation and EU co-financing.

Recital I: Distribution Grid Undervaluation

Recital I critiques the underrepresentation of distribution grids in major EU infrastructure funding schemes like CEF-E and the PCI list, despite their importance for local renewables and consumer participation. It lays the policy foundation for correcting funding imbalances.

Recital J: Cost-Benefit of Investment

This data-backed recital highlights that spending on cross-border investment brings significant cost savings. It frames grid investment not as a burden but as an economic opportunity.

Recital K: Energy Efficiency First

A legal anchor is introduced here. The recital references the binding “energy efficiency first” principle, suggesting that smart planning can reduce grid investment needs, aligning environmental and fiscal priorities.

Recital L: Energy Policy Triangle

This reference to sustainability, security, and affordability as the three pillars of energy policy serves as a reminder that grid planning must balance competing public interests, not serve climate goals in isolation.

Recital M: Long-Term Perspective

This short but important point links grid planning to investment stability, setting up the argument for longer-term and more predictable policy frameworks.

Recital N: Flexibility and Citizen Participation

This paragraph shifts to the human and systemic dimensions of grid flexibility, noting the untapped potential of citizens, SMEs, and local communities in providing demand-side solutions, and warning of delays in implementing enabling provisions.

Recitals O–P: Material and Supply Chain Resilience

These two recitals introduce the material basis of grid deployment. They discuss the importance of recycling, resource availability, and cable security, thus linking energy infrastructure to the EU’s broader strategic autonomy agenda and the Critical Raw Materials Act.

Recital Q: Real-World Risk Illustration

The blackout in the Iberian Peninsula is cited as a concrete example of systemic vulnerability, reinforcing the urgency of grid resilience and maintenance, and the consequences of underinvestment or poor planning.

Recital R: Governance Gaps

This section raises concerns about the governance of grid planning, particularly the limitations of ENTSO-E3’s current 10-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) and the insufficient role of regulators like ACER. It proposes earlier regulatory involvement as a remedy.

Recital S: Market Integration and Scale

The benefits of further market integration through interconnectors are reiterated, not just in terms of security, but also as drivers of cost savings and renewables scaling. This links technical infrastructure to market structure efficiency.

Recital T: Workforce Challenge

The recital introduces the issue of labour shortages, anticipating the human capital required to deliver the grid upgrades, energy transition technologies, and renewable deployment—laying the foundation for policy actions on training and upskilling.

Recital U: Role of SMEs

By emphasising the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, this recital reinforces the importance of inclusive market access and innovation, and the need for regulatory and financial systems that don’t favour only large incumbents.

Recital V: Decentralisation and Security

The final recital closes with a strategic rationale: decentralised generation and demand response reduce vulnerability to cyber, physical, or climate-related disruptions, making distributed energy resources a resilience asset.

B- Paragraphs

Chapter 1: General Call to Action

The first three articles of the resolution establish the overall political intent of the Parliament. They underscore the urgent need for Member States and EU institutions to collectively scale up efforts to modernise, expand, and optimise electricity grid capacity across the Union. The resolution clearly identifies grids as a foundational pillar in achieving a competitive, climate-neutral EU economy by 2050. This opening call affirms the importance of cross-border cooperation and investment, while reaffirming that decisions on national energy mixes remain the sovereign prerogative of each Member State.

Chapter 2: Relevance of Electricity Grids for the Energy Transition

Articles 4 through 10 justify the prioritisation of electricity grids within the broader climate and energy policy framework. They detail the rising demand for electricity, the limitations of ageing infrastructure, and the increasing curtailment of renewable generation due to insufficient grid capacity. The chapter places a strong emphasis on the strategic importance of smart grids, decentralised energy management, and the optimisation of demand response systems. The text also highlights the structural obstacles that energy communities and smaller actors face in accessing the grid and associated funding, urging institutional and legislative support to empower citizens, municipalities and SMEs as full participants in the electricity market.

Chapter 3: Regulatory Situation and Challenges

Spanning Articles 11 to 33, this is the most detailed chapter of the resolution, devoted to the governance and regulatory frameworks shaping Europe’s electricity infrastructure.

It begins by calling for legal certainty and long-term planning consistency, including the expansion of the planning horizon to twenty years. A reinforced role for ACER4 in network development planning is proposed to enhance oversight and coherence.

The chapter then turns to the shortcomings of the existing TEN-E Regulation and the Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) framework, recommending its revision to support smarter, more inclusive infrastructure planning and to ease access for smaller distribution system operators.

It also emphasises the need for better data transparency and proposes an overhaul of grid connection rules, including a move away from the current ‘first-come, first-served’ model. This chapter also stresses the importance of public engagement, faster permitting procedures, and the modernisation of procurement systems to reflect resilience and EU strategic autonomy objectives. Ultimately, the goal is to align regulatory frameworks with the real needs of the grid, the energy market, and climate targets.

Chapter 4: Financing

Articles 34 to 49 focus on the investment challenges and financial mechanisms necessary to deliver grid modernisation at scale. The resolution draws attention to the widening gap between electricity demand and the available grid infrastructure, and urges the expansion of the Connecting Europe Facility – Energy (CEF-E) to meet growing needs. It also recommends the creation of dedicated instruments to support decentralised innovation and anticipatory investments, especially in areas underserved by existing mechanisms.

The importance of removing regulatory barriers to private investment, introducing fair and forward-looking tariff structures, and strengthening EU co-financing tools is strongly asserted. Particular concern is raised regarding underused EU funds and the need for more transparent cost-sharing models for cross-border infrastructure. Furthermore, the resolution calls for specific financial models that account for both capital and operational expenditures, encourage system efficiency, and avoid overburdening consumers with grid upgrade costs.

Chapter 5: Grid-Enhancing Technologies, Digitalisation, and Resilience

The next section, articulated in Articles 50 to 59, promotes the deployment of innovative technologies to maximise the capacity and efficiency of existing infrastructure. It advocates for increased use of artificial intelligence, digital systems, and demand-side flexibility tools that can provide real-time data on energy flows and optimise system operations without necessitating constant physical expansion.

The creation of a Common European Energy Data Space is highlighted as essential to enable secure, transparent, and interoperable data exchange. The chapter also underscores the urgency of strengthening the resilience of electricity infrastructure, particularly in the face of growing cyber threats and climate-related vulnerabilities. Regulatory support for smart metering, energy-efficient buildings, and flexibility services is considered vital to a modern, stable grid.

Chapter 6: Supply Chain, Raw Materials, and Skills

Articles 60 to 68 address the enabling conditions necessary to support the EU’s energy infrastructure transformation. Acknowledging the pressure on global supply chains, the resolution calls for enhanced efforts to secure the availability of critical grid components such as cables and transformers, and to reinforce access to essential raw materials like copper and aluminium. It urges the EU to ramp up domestic manufacturing, support recycling efforts, and ensure that dependencies on non-EU suppliers are minimised.

The resolution places particular emphasis on the human dimension of the transition, warning of acute labour shortages and the need to expand the energy workforce by 50% by 2030. The Parliament calls for targeted training, skills partnerships, and gender-balanced hiring to equip Europe’s workforce for the scale of the challenge. It also reaffirms the role of SMEs in the innovation and supply chain ecosystem for electricity technologies.

Chapter 7: Offshore Development

Articles 69 and 70 elevate the role of offshore energy in achieving energy autonomy and meeting renewable energy targets.

The North Seas, with their vast wind potential, are highlighted as the most strategically important region, with a target of 300 GW of offshore capacity by 2050. The resolution supports the development of meshed offshore grids and hybrid interconnectors to ensure efficient integration and electricity trading. However, it also points out the absence of a stable regulatory framework for offshore infrastructure and calls for the creation of one that offers certainty to investors and supports effective cross-border cooperation.

Chapter 8: Cooperation with Non-EU Countries

In Articles 71 and 72, the resolution turns to the need for international coordination. It stresses the strategic importance of deepening energy cooperation with like-minded non-EU partners, particularly Norway and the United Kingdom. Given the interdependence of North Sea grid infrastructure, the Parliament advocates for pragmatic electricity trading arrangements that enhance system efficiency and security of supply on both sides.

Chapter 9: Outermost Regions

The final article, Article 73, brings attention to the unique energy challenges facing the EU’s outermost regions, such as those disconnected from the mainland electricity grid. These areas often suffer from high costs, blackout risks, and isolation from broader grid benefits. The resolution calls for tailored EU support to help these regions develop autonomous and resilient local energy systems, including specific financial and policy instruments within the forthcoming European Grids Package.

2- Amendments tabled in committee

The position of the EPP

The amendments submitted by the European People’s Party (EPP) in this legislative package reflect a pragmatic orientation focused on administrative efficiency, national implementation capacity, and grid stability as a foundation for economic growth.

Their proposals frequently emphasize the simplification of permitting and procedural bottlenecks, suggesting that cutting red tape is central to unlocking investment and reinforcing system reliability. In Amendment 34, for example, the reference to “electricity grids” underscores their attention to infrastructure as a driver of competitiveness, while avoiding overtly normative commitments to decarbonisation targets.

Similarly, EPP signatories such as Seán Kelly, Radan Kanev, Andrea Wechsler, and Massimiliano Salini engage in textual modifications that stress coordination without undermining national sovereignty. The group’s overarching approach privileges enabling environments where businesses and national regulators can act flexibly, rather than being constrained by overly prescriptive EU mandates.

However, this deregulatory posture reveals a core contradiction: while EPP supports investment in energy infrastructure, it often resists binding sustainability instruments that would ensure such investments are fully aligned with the Union’s climate objectives. Their amendments thus reflect a belief in favoring procedural clarity over transformative, gree regulation.

The position of the S&D

The S&D’s proposed amendments reflect a nuanced blend of social-democratic priorities rooted in equity, economic stability, and institutional accountability.

In Amendment 11, the group calls for prioritizing “border infrastructure flagship projects,” a phrase that underscores their commitment to cross-border grid investment and signals strategic alignment of energy funding with broader EU cohesion goals.

This emphasis on infrastructural equity is complemented by Amendments 18 and 22, both of which conclude with the phrase “energy while supporting economic growth.” This recurring language reveals the group’s central balancing act: championing the green transition without jeopardizing employment or industrial vitality. Climate ambition is framed as a vehicle for economic development, though the cautious tone also signals wariness toward overly disruptive decarbonisation paths.

In Amendment 5, the citation of “(JOIN(2025) 9 final);” shows a preference for grounding new proposals in formal policy continuity and legal precedent, suggesting that institutional stability is a necessary condition for ensuring affordability and advancing climate goals. Even minimalist insertions, like the word “targets;” in Amendment 1, signal the group’s reaffirmation of binding EU climate objectives.

Overall, the S&D approach fuses a belief in socially just transformation with the realities of political and economic compromise. Yet this very pragmatism may soften the clarity or ambition of their climate stance, setting them apart from more radical green narratives while still pressing toward a regulated and fair transition.

The position of the Renew

The Renew group’s amendments reflect a technocratic and liberal approach to the energy transition, characterized by a focus on enabling frameworks, industrial competitiveness, and cross-border efficiency.

While S&Ds tend to focus on job protection and equity, Renew MEPs frame growth as a goal tied to innovation and competitiveness. In Amendment 33, the phrase “electricity system;” suggests a structural or network-oriented view of energy policy, in line with Renew’s broader support for integrated markets and technical modernization. Collectively, their amendments portray a vision of climate action that relies on smart regulation, market incentives, and technological scalability. However, this same reliance on abstract frameworks and legal precision can make their proposals appear distant from social or territorial concerns, exposing a tension between economic liberalism and the inclusive demands of a just transition.

The position of the Greens

The Greens’ amendments in this dossier reveal a consistent focus on institutional coherence, procedural legitimacy, and inclusive governance, positioning them as champions of foundational reform rather than detailed technocratic engineering.

Their proposals emphasize the role of transparent EU institutions and citizen participation as essential conditions for a just and effective energy transition. In the limited textual references available,

Green MEP Kira Marie Peter-Hansen appears repeatedly alongside S&D and Renew colleagues, suggesting a strategy of cross-group coalition building around shared democratic and environmental principles. Although the content of individual amendments is often procedural or declarative, their underlying aim is clear: to anchor the energy transition in participatory mechanisms that avoid purely market-driven or state-centric approaches.

Their amendments lay the moral and procedural groundwork for transformative energy models, but often lack the concrete operational detail needed to steer technical deployment at scale. Without clearer engagement with the practicalities of grid investment and energy system architecture, their vision, while principled, risks being perceived as politically admirable but technically incomplete.

The position of PfE

The amendments proposed by MEPs affiliated with Patriots for Europe (PfE) articulate a distinctly nationalist approach to energy policy, one that foregrounds sovereignty and national preference as central guiding principles.

Figures such as András Gyürk, Aleksandar Nikolic, and Pascale Piera appear across multiple proposals, often working independently of larger coalitions and emphasizing language that implicitly challenges supranational authority.

In their framing, the energy transition is not primarily a European project but a matter of national competence, to be pursued according to domestic preferences and economic strategies. This positioning is particularly evident in textual interventions that avoid references to binding EU targets or interdependence, instead reinforcing the right of member states to chart their own pathways.

However, this rhetorical insistence on sovereignty coexists uneasily with the material realities of European energy policy. The need for cross-border electricity grids, shared regulatory frameworks, and coordinated investment strategies makes the energy system inherently interdependent.

This creates a structural contradiction within PfE’samendments: they reject the deepening of EU competence in energy governance, yet their vision cannot fully function without the very infrastructure and planning mechanisms that only supranational coordination can provide. Their proposals thus reflect a defensive, sovereignty-first outlook that resists integration while remaining reliant on its outputs.

The position of the ECR

The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group presents a set of amendments shaped by a conservative and cautious approach to the energy transition, marked by an emphasis on subsidiarity, regulatory restraint, and national autonomy.

MEPs such as Ondřej Krutílek and Daniel Obajtek contribute to proposals that largely seek to temper or dilute the more integrative ambitions of the original legislative text. Rather than advancing new mechanisms or investment strategies, ECR’s amendments often focus on revising or removing language perceived as overly prescriptive or centralising.

Their approach consistently favors reducing the regulatory burden on national governments and limiting the expansion of EU competencies in the energy domain. These interventions reflect a deep skepticism toward top-down coordination and a belief in member states’ right to determine the pace and nature of their own energy reforms. However, this ideological coherence is accompanied by a strategic limitation: the amendments rarely propose detailed alternatives or pathways for achieving the same energy security and decarbonisation goals they critique. As a result, ECR’s contributions often amount to regulatory resistance rather than constructive engagement, exposing a contradiction between their demand for national flexibility and the lack of substantive proposals that would make such flexibility operational in a complex, interconnected energy market.

The position of the ESN – Far-right

The amendments submitted by representatives affiliated with the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) and other far-right positions reveal a pattern of vague, disruptive, or overtly revisionist language that departs from the legislative mainstream.

Figures such as Sarah Knafo and Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă contribute to proposals that frequently position themselves in opposition to the core principles of EU energy governance, often without offering actionable alternatives.

Their amendments tend to avoid technical specificity or policy detail, instead engaging in symbolic gestures that signal resistance to integration, environmental regulation, or the legitimacy of EU climate objectives.

In some cases, their language attempts to reframe the legislative narrative entirely, by invoking national exceptionalism as justification for opting out. However, this oppositional posture fails to engage with the structural requirements of the internal energy market or the interdependent nature of grid infrastructure and decarbonisation planning.

The result is a set of proposals that are more rhetorical than operative—rejective in tone, thin in substance, and largely disconnected from the institutional and technical architecture necessary to implement effective policy. This reveals a fundamental contradiction: while seeking to undermine the consensus around coordinated climate action, these amendments offer no clear pathway to resolve the very challenges they critique.

3- Plenary Initiatives

Among all political groups, the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group stood out as the most active in tabling plenary amendments to the European Parliament’s resolution on electricity grids. Through the voices of András Gyürk(Amendments 2 to 5 and 7) and Paolo Borchia (Amendment 6), the group advanced a vision of grid development anchored in grid stability, technological neutrality, and respect for national energy mixes. The substance of their amendments reflects key priorities and a distinct narrative on energy security and system resilience.

Amendment 2 sets the tone by insisting that baseload power sources and sufficient backup capacity are crucial to grid stability, and that technological neutrality must be upheld to ensure efficient and competitive energy policy. The amendment frames grid infrastructure not just as a technical backbone, but as a cornerstone of the European economy.

Amendment 3 focuses on the blackout that struck the Iberian Peninsula on 28 April 2025, using it as a case study to underline the need for flexible system services, investment in fast-response backup generation, and a critical reassessment of overreliance on variable renewables. The amendment also points to the lack of transparency from the Spanish government, calling for a clear explanation of the event’s causes.

Amendment 4 expands the strategic framing of the grid, asserting its central role in the EU’s strategic autonomy, while again reaffirming the need for a technology-neutral approach. The amendment also insists on respecting the sovereignty of Member States in determining their energy mix.

Amendment 5 expresses clear opposition to imposing decentralised grid models in countries with predominantly centralised energy systems, reinforcing the group’s emphasis on national flexibility and subsidiarity.

Amendment 7 supports cross-border interconnections for their system-wide cost savings, but flags potential regional price increases, notably in Sweden, as a reason for careful and forward-looking grid planning that protects consumers from adverse effects.

Paolo Borchia’s Amendment 6 further elaborates on the April 2025 blackout in Spain, linking the disruption to the high penetration of variable renewable energy sources, and arguing that conventional generation provides more grid inertia, which is vital for frequency control. The amendment calls for a technology-neutral approach that integrates all technologies capable of supporting grid stability, and urges Member States to strengthen risk assessments and adopt resilient, diversified grid models in light of growing demand.

Taken together, these amendments reveal PfE’s preference for a realist, sovereignty-based approach to grid planning, focused on conventional backup capacity, and national discretion, in contrast to more centralised or renewables-driven models.

4- Our vision

As the European Union accelerates its transformation toward a decarbonised and energy-resilient economy, Ave Europa supports this shift while advancing a distinct vision—one that prioritises nuclear energy, urban-integrated solar, and grid innovation over wind power. Ave Europa aligns with core EU ambitions,deep decarbonisation, cross-border interconnection, and smart electrification,but diverges on the role of land-intensive renewables like wind. Instead, Ave Europa champions a model that protects natural landscapes and takes into account the negative environmental externalities of onshore wind turbines, while favouring a focus on offshore wind development.

Grids and Interconnections: Europe’s Energy Backbone

Without a modern, integrated, and flexible grid, even the most advanced energy sources cannot reach consumers efficiently. Ave Europa strongly endorses EU-wide investment in smart grids, digitalisation, and cross-border infrastructure that enables energy sharing, demand-side flexibility, and storage integration. Such goals match the EU resolution’s emphasis on the need for €584 billion in grid investment by 2030 and a more decentralised, resilient electricity system.

Ave also advocates for European-level coordination to streamline permitting, modernise procurement, and foster regulatory certainty—key enablers for unlocking private and public investment.

Nuclear Energy: A Dispatched, Clean and Reliable Core

In contrast to the EU’s technology-neutral stance, Ave Europa places nuclear power at the centre of the energy mix. Nuclear offers what intermittent renewables cannot: stable, dispatchable, low-carbon baseload energy. Ave Europa supports the development of existing and next-generation nuclear infrastructure, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the long-term potential of nuclear fusion. This focus responds directly to the Parliament’s call for anticipatory investment, supply stability, and strategic autonomy.

Where the resolution calls for reducing curtailment and enhancing grid hosting capacity, Ave Europa argues that a nuclear-heavy mix reduces the need for vast balancing infrastructure by providing constant output, thereby increasing system efficiency.

Urban Solar and Architectural Integration

Rather than land-intensive renewables like onshore wind, Ave backs decentralised solar as a people-driven solution that preserves natural and agricultural landscapes. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) offer energy generation embedded directly into homes, offices, and public spaces. This aligns with the resolution’s call to empower energy communities and diversify generation, but Ave Europa sees solar not as a utility-scale rural imposition, but as an urban innovation, quiet, scalable, and respectful of land use.

Protecting Farmland and Rural Communities

Ave departs from prevailing EU trends by calling for a moratorium on the installation of wind turbines in sensitive rural areas, in order to protect natural landscapes, preserve agricultural land, and mitigate negative environmental and social externalities. Recent concerns about turbine debris, noise, and land fragmentation reinforce this precautionary approach. In Ave Europa’s view, the energy transition must not come at the expense of food security or rural integrity.

Strategic Autonomy Through Industrial Capacity and Skills

Ave strongly supports the Parliament’s focus on reshoring supply chains, standardising grid components, and addressing labour shortages in the energy sector. European grid infrastructure should be built with European technologies and skilled European workers. Following the Parliament, Ave Europa calls for increased funding to SMEs, targeted skills programmes, and transparent public procurement processes that favour sustainability and industrial sovereignty.

Rejecting Wind: A Conscious Strategic Choice

Where the European Parliament’s resolution takes a technology-neutral position, Ave Europa is explicit: wind turbines are incompatible with its vision for a sustainable and socially responsible energy transition. Aesthetic concerns, land-use conflicts, and ecological risks outweigh the benefits in Ave’s assessment. Instead, Ave’s roadmap is built on compact, high-output energy sources like nuclear, urban solar, and digitalised grid optimisation, delivering clean power without visual or environmental disruption.

Conclusion: Ave’s Energy Vision—Aligned, But Distinct

Ave Europa fully supports the goals set out in the European Parliament’s resolution: a clean, competitive, and interconnected EU electricity system. Ave Europa embraces nuclear as the backbone of decarbonisation, solar as an urban design solution, grids as critical infrastructures, and European manufacturing as the guarantor of sovereignty.