COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013
Date: 2020-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, energy cooperation, energy grid, gas supply, project of common interest, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, security of supply, trans-European network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2020  SWD(2020) 347 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013   {COM(2020) 824 final} - {SEC(2020) 431 final} - {SWD(2020) 346 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact  assessment  on  the  revisions  of  the  Guidelines  for  the  trans-European  energy  networks  (TEN-E 
Regulation)   

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

The  current  TEN-E  Regulation  has  established  a  new  approach  to  cross-border  infrastructure  planning 
bringing together stakeholders in a regional cooperation setting to identify and help implement the projects 
of  common  interest  (PCIs)  that  contribute  most  to  the  internal  energy  market,  security  of  supply  and 
sustainability.  It  also  requires  Member  States  to  streamline  permit  granting  procedures  for  PCIs  and 
provides  for  the  conditions  to  access  to  financing  from  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF).  The 
evaluation  of  the  current  TEN-E  Regulation  showed  that  while  the  objectives  of  the  current  Regulation 
remain largely valid, their focus on 2020/30 targets must be upgraded to reflect the new political context 
and  the  2050  climate  neutrality  objective  under  the  European  Green  Deal.  Besides  the  new  political 
context and objectives, technological development has been rapid in the past decade.  

The  following  two  key  problems  have  been  identified:  1)  Type  and  scale  of  cross-border  infrastructure 
developments are not fully aligned with EU energy policy objectives in particular as regards the European 
Green Deal and the climate neutrality objective, and 2) Delays in project implementation. The increased 
2030 climate target and the climate-neutrality objective of the European Green Deal and A Clean Planet 
for All require a profound transition of the European energy system, both on the supply and demand side. 
This  means  an  infrastructure  needs  to  be  in  place  to  support  this  European  energy  transition,  including 
rapid  electrification  with  a  doubling  of  the  share  of  renewable  electricity  production,  steep  increase  of 
renewable and low-carbon gases, energy system integration and a higher uptake of innovative solutions. 
Not all infrastructure categories relevant for the energy transition are currently eligible for PCI status (e.g. 
hydrogen)  and  some  do  not  sufficiently  reflect  technological  developments  (e.g.  smart  grids).  Delays  in 
the implementation of priority projects that have been identified as necessary to  achieve the  EU climate 
and energy policy objectives would jeopardise the required accelerated change in the energy system. The 
implementation  of key infrastructure projects  still takes too  long.  In 2020, 27% of electricity PCIs were 
delayed by on average 17 months against their initially planned commissioning date.  

What should be achieved? 

The general objective is to facilitate the timely development of adequate energy infrastructure across the 
EU and in its neighbourhood to enable delivering on the EU’s energy and climate objectives in line with 
the European Green Deal, in particular on the 2030/50 targets including the climate-neutrality objective, as 
well  as  market  integration,  competitiveness,  and  security  of  supply  at  least  cost  to  consumers  and 
businesses.  The  specific  objectives  are:  1)  Enable  the  identification  of  the  cross-border  projects  and 
investments across the EU and with its neighbouring countries that are necessary for the energy transition 
and climate targets, 2) Improve infrastructure planning for energy system integration and offshore grids, 3) 
Shorten permitting procedures for PCIs to avoid delays in projects that facilitate the energy transition, and 
4) Ensure the appropriate use of cost sharing tools and regulatory incentives.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

An  EU-level  framework  for  cooperation  amongst  Member  States  is  necessary  to  develop  cross-border 
energy  infrastructure.  Individual  Member  State  regulations  and  actions  are  insufficient  to  deliver  these 
infrastructure projects. From an economic perspective, energy network developments can best be achieved 

 
 
 
when  planned  with  a  European  perspective,  encompassing  both  EU  and  Member  State  action  while 
respecting their respective competences. The evaluation of the current TEN-E Regulation confirmed that 
TEN-E  has  clearly  provided  added  value  compared  to  what  could  have  been  achieved  at  national  or 
regional level alone.  

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred  option or not? If not, 
why? 

Various policy options were considered for the following issues: 

A) SCOPE 

  Smart electricity grids and electricity storage 
  Gas infrastructure, hydrogen networks and power-to-gas 
  Projects with third countries (projects of mutual interest) 

B) GOVERNANCE / INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING 

  Offshore grids for renewable energy 
  Cross-sectoral infrastructure planning 

C) PERMITTING  

  Accelerating completion of permitting procedures 
  One-stop shop for offshore grid development 

D) REGULATORY TREATMENT 

 

Inclusion of full investment costs 

The comparison of the options shows that no single option is sufficient to meet the identified objectives. A 
package  of  preferred  policy  options  appears  as  best  suited  to  achieve  the  objectives  in  a  proportional 
manner, as described in detail in the impact assessment report. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  current  framework,  many  stakeholders  pointed  out  a  necessary  update  of 
smart  electricity  grids.  While  several  stakeholder  groups,  mainly  representing  TSOs  and  industry 
associations,  considered  the  inclusion  of  new  gas  infrastructures  important,  there  was  mixed  support 
notably from environmental NGOs. As regards governance and infrastructure planning, stakeholders did 
not  express  specific  views  on  the  future  offshore  infrastructure  planning  regime,  while  supporting 
adjustments to the responsibilities in infrastructure planning and reinforcing the sustainability assessment. 
Concerning  permitting,  stakeholders  pointed  to  the  difficulties  with  complex  and  lengthy  permitting 
process for offshore projects crossing several jurisdictions and called for a simplified permitting process. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

The  assessment  of  the  impacts  relies  to  a  large  extent  on  a  qualitative  approach.  It  was  not  possible  to 
quantify  the  impacts  for  all  options  due  to  the  lack  of  project  specific  data  in  particular  for  new 
infrastructure categories. Moreover, the proposed changes are mainly gradual improvements to the current 
framework, which has been deemed to work relatively well. 

Adapting  the  scope  of  the  instrument  by  ensuring  the  consistency  of  infrastructure  categories  with  the 
climate-neutrality  objective  will  lower  greenhouse  gas  emissions  supported  by  optimal  and  efficient 

 
 
 
 
integrated infrastructure planning which also minimizes potential environmental impacts. An accelerated 
permitting process will also allow for a faster implementation of key projects therefore bringing forward 
the environmental and socio-economic benefits.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                    

The  TEN-E  Regulation  establishes  an  enabling  framework  for  Trans-European  energy  infrastructure  by 
providing  for  a  process  for  the  selection  of  projects  of  common  interest  which  can  then  benefit  from 
provisions to facilitate their implementation. As such, the TEN-E Regulation does not impose obligations 
or  costs  on  economic  operators,  but  it  does  set  requirements  on  promoters  of  PCIs,  mainly  TSOs  and 
DSOs,  which  decide  to  apply  for  PCI  status  and  subsequently  become  subject  to  certain  obligations, 
mainly  in  the  form  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations.  In  addition,  the  TEN-E  Regulation  sets 
obligations on competent national authorities and regulators concerning permitting, regulatory incentives, 
and  public  participation  as  well  as  on  network  operators  concerning  long-term  network  planning. 
Consumers are mainly affected through network tariffs to finance investments in the regulatory asset base 
(RAB). A targeted use of the TEN-E instrument in conjunction with selective support from the Connecting 
Europe Facility can help to alleviate these costs for consumers while also minimising the risk of stranded 
assets. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

No  direct  impacts  in  terms  of  compliance  or  administrative  costs  for  SMEs  are  identified.  SMEs  could 
benefit from increased competitiveness in those technology areas that are included or strengthened in the 
future TEN-E framework (e.g. offshore renewable energy industry, digital services, or hydrogen). 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

Increased  coordination  and  streamlining  of  existing  structures  within  Member  States’  competent 
authorities in charge of the PCI selection and implementation will bring further efficiencies.  

Will there be other significant impacts?  

Compliance costs will decrease as a result of REFIT measures proposed such as streamlining of reporting 
obligations, more efficient monitoring and opting out of pre-consultation requirements if already covered 
by the national rules under the same or higher standards as in the TEN-E Regulation. 

Proportionality?  

The package of preferred policy options is considered proportionate. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

A  review  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  new  legislation  could  take  place  in  2026,  when  the  second  PCI 
selection process under the new framework should have been completed.