Amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001, (EU) 2019/944, (EU) 2024/1788 as regards acceleration of permit-granting procedures

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 266

Andrea Wechsler, Angelika Winzig, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the role of independent facilitators within permitting and participation procedures. Member States should retain flexibility regarding the organisation of administrative and coordination structures in accordance with their national legal and institutional frameworks. A mandatory and overly detailed governance model may create unnecessary administrative complexity without corresponding procedural benefits. The amendment therefore contributes to a more proportionate and practically applicable implementation framework.

Amendment 267

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 268

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 269

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 270

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 271

Yannis Maniatis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 272

Katri Kulmuni, Bart Groothuis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 273

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 274

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

It is unclear what "any relevant party" means, which risks unforeseeable consequences. Therefore it should be clarified who can request an intervention.

Amendment 275

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 276

Sophie Wilmès, Bart Groothuis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 277

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 278

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 279

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. fr

Amendment 280

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point a

Or. fr

Amendment 281

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 282

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 283

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15d – paragraph 4 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 284

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 285

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 286

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 287

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 288

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 289

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – point c

Or. fr

Amendment 290

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. en

Amendment 291

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. en

Justification

Member States already apply a wide range of established frameworks and practices in this area, reflecting diverse national and regional circumstances. Imposing detailed or mandatory requirements at Union level would risk duplicating existing systems, increasing administrative complexity and generating additional costs, thereby potentially slowing down the deployment of renewable energy. This amendment therefore preserves the necessary flexibility for Member States to build on existing approaches and to ensure that benefit-sharing measures remain proportionate, efficient and supportive of timely project delivery.

Amendment 292

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. en

Amendment 293

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. en

Amendment 294

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. en

Justification

Member States shall make sure that the cost of the facilitator is not entirely passed on to the project developer.

Amendment 295

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph

Or. fr

Amendment 296

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 297

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 15 d – paragraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 298

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16

Or. en

Amendment 299

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point -a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment aligns the terminology with the different legal and operational frameworks governing grid connection procedures across Member States. In several national systems, grid connection arrangements are not implemented through administrative permit procedures in the strict sense but through technical, contractual and regulatory processes involving system operators and competent authorities. The clarification therefore improves legal precision and avoids divergent interpretation regarding the nature of grid connection procedures. This contributes to a more coherent implementation of the Directive across the Union.

Amendment 300

Jorge Martín Frías

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 301

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The primary objective of the provision is to streamline and accelerate the permitting process, reducing bureaucratic delays and enhancing procedural efficiency, rather than creating an additional digital layer that could inadvertently slow down the overall process.

Amendment 302

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 303

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 304

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies and broadens the scope of the single digital portal to cover the full range of energy infrastructure projects necessary for achieving the transition to climate neutrality, including electricity, gas and hydrogen networks, CO₂ transport and storage, and energy storage facilities. This ensures a coherent and integrated approach to permit-granting procedures across the entire energy system, reflecting the increasing interconnection between different energy vectors. By explicitly including these infrastructure categories, the amendment strengthens legal certainty and avoids fragmentation in administrative practice, which could otherwise lead to delays and inefficiencies. A comprehensive scope is essential to ensure that critical enabling infrastructure is not treated inconsistently compared to generation projects, thereby safeguarding timely system integration.

Amendment 305

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 306

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 307

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

(See wording Article 16 - Paragraph 3a)

Justification

The obligation to establish a single digital portal at national level does not adequately reflect the diversity of administrative structures across Member States. Many countries have decentralised permit-granting procedures, which may not be compatible with a single, centralised portal. Imposing a single national portal in such contexts would require disproportionate administrative restructuring, potentially delaying implementation and undermining the objective of procedural simplification.

Amendment 308

Sarah Knafo

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 309

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 310

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 311

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 312

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 313

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 314

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 315

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 316

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 2

Or. en

(See wording Article 16 - Paragraph 3a)

Justification

The obligation to establish a single digital portal at national level does not adequately reflect the diversity of administrative structures across Member States. Many countries have decentralised permit-granting procedures, which may not be compatible with a single, centralised portal. Imposing a single national portal in such contexts would require disproportionate administrative restructuring, potentially delaying implementation and undermining the objective of procedural simplification. The proposed amendment preserves the full substantive objectives of the provision.

Amendment 317

Sarah Knafo

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 318

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 319

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 3

Or. fr

Amendment 320

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 321

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The deletion of the obligation to publish detailed annual statistical data on permit-granting procedures reduces unnecessary administrative burden for competent authorities. Collecting, standardising and regularly updating such granular data across all procedural steps would require significant resources, without providing a commensurate benefit for accelerating permitting processes. Existing monitoring and reporting obligations at Union and national level already provide sufficient oversight of implementation progress. Introducing additional reporting layers risks diverting administrative capacity away from the core objective of processing applications more efficiently and within the established timelines.

Amendment 322

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 323

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 324

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a – subparagraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment strengthens legal certainty and predictability for project developers by ensuring early and precise guidance on documentation and information requirements. In practice, incomplete or unclear application requirements are a major source of delays in permit-granting procedures, leading to iterative requests and procedural inefficiencies. Requiring competent authorities and system operators to provide standardised information, including structured requirement frameworks and procedural checklists, reduces administrative burden and facilitates faster and more transparent processing of applications. Differentiation by connection type further ensures proportionality and relevance of the requirements.

Amendment 325

Jorge Martín Frías

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – new paragraph 3 a a (new)

Or. en

Justification

This amendment aims to prevent deliberate project splitting by the same developer or coordinated entities in order to circumvent permit‑granting and environmental assessment requirements that would apply if technically and economically interdependent installations were assessed as a single project.

Amendment 326

Andrea Wechsler, Norbert Lins, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 a – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment clarifies that conversion or hybridisation of biogas plants fall within the scope of Article 16j and, thus, benefit from the same streamlined permitting timelines applicable in renewables acceleration areas under Article 16a of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. This ensures a coherent regulatory approach for projects contributing to the expansion of renewable energy production and supports the broader objective of facilitating timely deployment of technologies relevant for decarbonisation.

Amendment 327

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 b (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/ 2001

Article 16 a – paragraph 2

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment extends the scope of simplified permitting procedures to a broader range of small-scale renewable energy installations and co-located storage projects. Raising the threshold from 150 kW to 300 kW reflects technological developments and supports faster deployment of decentralised renewable energy, electrification and flexibility solutions, while maintaining a proportionate approach to permitting requirements.

Amendment 328

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 c (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment introduces a differentiated and proportionate approach to permit-granting timelines, reflecting the different levels of complexity of renewable energy projects. Evidence from the Commission, ACER and TEN-E implementation reports shows that permitting for standard onshore projects typically takes 1–3 years, while more complex infrastructure, including offshore projects and installations subject to water law, often requires longer due to environmental assessments, spatial planning and technical integration requirements. A one-year deadline for standard onshore projects outside renewables acceleration areas sets a clear benchmark for administrative efficiency, aligns with best-performing Member States and increases investment certainty. This is necessary to accelerate deployment and meet the Union’s 2030 renewable energy target of at least 42.5%. At the same time, longer timelines remain justified for inherently complex projects. Offshore renewables involve maritime spatial planning, cross-border coordination and extensive environmental impact assessments. Projects subject to water law, such as hydropower, geothermal electricity generation and solar installations in or above water bodies, require additional authorisations under water protection and environmental legislation. Extending the two-year timeline to these categories ensures legal certainty while preserving proportionality and environmental safeguards.

Amendment 329

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

It is unclear how the deletion of this provision will contribute to achieving simplification regarding the tacit approval. It rather eliminates legal certainty for the project promoter. Therefore, the provision should be kept.

Amendment 330

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment preserves legal certainty for renewable energy projects by clarifying that incidental killing or disturbance of protected species should not be considered deliberate where appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented. This supports a proportionate application of Union environmental law while facilitating the timely deployment of renewable energy projects necessary for climate neutrality and energy security.

Amendment 331

Angelika Winzig

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 332

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b

Or. fr

Amendment 333

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 334

Angelika Winzig

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Deleting this sentence would slow down permitting processes again. A good balance of interest in species protection should be achieved.

Amendment 335

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2021

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment further accelerates the deployment of small-scale renewable energy projects, repowering and co-located storage outside renewables acceleration areas by introducing shorter and more predictable permitting timelines. Extending the simplified regime to installations up to 300 kW supports decentralised renewable energy, electrification and system flexibility, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for complex and offshore projects.

Amendment 336

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 337

Jorge Martín Frías

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 338

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. fr

Justification

Tacit granting is legally risky: it could lead to more disputes, more preventative refusals by administrations and legal uncertainty for projects. The French Senate expressed that very reservation in an 8 April 2026 resolution.

Amendment 339

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 340

Sarah Knafo

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 341

Katri Kulmuni, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Tacit approval would result in the absence of explicit permitting conditions. This would create significant and undesirable legal uncertainties for the project promoter. Decisions made through tacit approval would not be upheld in a court of law if challenged on appeal, which would compel the operator to reapply for a permit for their project. This would increase the administrative burden and de facto slow down the processing of permit applications, which would be contrary to the objectives of the proposed legislation.

Amendment 342

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the scope and limits of tacit approval in permit granting procedures for repowering projects. It confines tacit approval to specific procedural steps under Union environmental law while expressly excluding grid connection procedures and safety related decisions. This distinction is necessary because such decisions require explicit technical and administrative assessment. The amendment therefore strengthens legal certainty and ensures that procedural acceleration remains compatible with system security and applicable Union law.

Amendment 343

Seán Kelly

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 344

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 345

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 346

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 347

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Change necessary due to change proposed in Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Amendment 348

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

The publication of the connection decisions of network operators may cause serious harm to the commercial interests of the economic operators concerned, and it is therefore appropriate, in any event, to provide for a narrower scope of information than the public requirement or, at the very least, to provide for the possibility of publication on an anonymized basis.

Amendment 349

Jorge Martín Frías

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 350

Seán Kelly

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 351

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 b – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 352

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment further specifies the conditions under which environmental screening and assessment requirements for repowering projects can be limited, thereby enhancing legal clarity and ensuring consistent application across Member States. In particular, it clarifies that capacity increases do not automatically trigger full environmental reassessments where impacts remain confined and predictable. By introducing clear criteria—such as the use of the same or a functionally connected site, strictly limited additional land use, and compliance with existing mitigation measures—the amendment ensures that streamlined procedures are applied only in cases where environmental risks are demonstrably low. This is fully in line with the principle of proportionality under Union law. Limiting assessments to the incremental impact compared to the original installation avoids unnecessary duplication and administrative burden, which is a key obstacle to timely repowering. At the same time, it fully preserves the requirements of Directive 2011/92/EU and related environmental acquis.

Amendment 353

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c

Or. fr

Amendment 354

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Amendment 355

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Amendment 356

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Amendment 357

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Justification

Infrastructure assets will have to be repowered, modernised or refurbished during their lifespan. A change in land status shall not prevent these measures.

Amendment 358

Seán Kelly

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Amendment 359

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that the facilitation of repowering through stable land-use conditions must fully respect Member States’ competences in spatial planning and land-use regulation. While avoiding unnecessary barriers to repowering is essential for accelerating the energy transition, such measures should not interfere with national planning frameworks or the legitimate exercise of local and regional authorities’ powers. By explicitly safeguarding these competences, the amendment reinforces the principle of subsidiarity and ensures legal certainty for national authorities. It prevents potential conflicts between Union-level acceleration objectives and established planning procedures, which could otherwise lead to legal challenges and delays.

Amendment 360

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 2 b

Or. en

Amendment 361

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 362

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 363

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The amendment establishes a proportionate framework for the repowering of existing renewable energy installations. Repowering projects frequently require limited technical adaptations or adjustments compared to the original installation in order to comply with updated operational, safety or technical standards. Such modifications should not automatically trigger assessment procedures equivalent to those applicable to entirely new projects. At the same time, the amendment maintains strict conditions by limiting the exemption to the same or functionally connected site and by restricting additional land use to what is strictly necessary for the technical and functional requirements of the project. Environmental assessment obligations under Union law remain applicable with regard to the additional impacts resulting from the modification or extension.

Amendment 364

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 365

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Simplification. The paragraph should apply to renewable energy and storage installations. Repowering may involve technical upgrades or limited modifications, therefore such changes shall require an environmental impact assessment on incremental basis, where required.

Amendment 366

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 367

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 368

Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 369

Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

There is no objective reason to limit the repowering exemption to wind installations. Where repowering does not require additional land use and remains within the environmental mitigation measures of the original project, the environmental impact is equally limited for solar and hydropower installations. Applying the same streamlined procedure to all three renewable technologies ensures equal treatment and regulatory consistency.

Amendment 370

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 371

Letizia Moratti, Massimiliano Salini, Fulvio Martusciello

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 c – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 372

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 373

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 374

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 375

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 376

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the scope of the exemption by replacing the narrow concept of “grid connection permits” with the broader and more accurate notion of “grid connection procedures, including connection rights or approvals”. This reflects the practical reality that grid connection is not a single administrative act but a sequence of technical and regulatory steps involving system operators. By aligning the terminology with actual administrative and operational practices, the amendment enhances legal certainty and avoids divergent interpretation across Member States. It ensures that all relevant connection-related steps remain subject to appropriate assessment, thereby safeguarding system stability and operational security.

Amendment 377

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 378

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with changes in Article 17.

Amendment 379

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Jorge Martín Frías, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d

Or. fr

Amendment 380

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 381

Aura Salla

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Already part of the existing electricity directive.

Amendment 382

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

If these small sources are to be connected, it should continue to apply that these sources must meet certain technical parameters described in the RfG and in the DSO Grid Code, Annex No. 4, or in the DSO’s connection conditions. Nowadays, it is necessary to conclude a connection agreement for such cases. The proposed wording effectively aims at abolishing all technical requirements for connecting these sources.

Amendment 383

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Primarily, the obligation for Member States to remove regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to plug-in mini-solar systems risks undermining electrical safety frameworks, grid operation, and overall regulatory coherence across the Union. Electricity generation units connected “behind the meter” through standard sockets may create significant challenges for system operators in maintaining grid stability, ensuring accurate metering, and forecasting consumption patterns.

Amendment 384

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 385

Daniel Attard

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (UE) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

It should not be mandatory for all Member States to remove such regulatory barriers for plug-in mini-solar systems. There must be a recognition for the unique safety requirements in Type G jurisdictions like Malta, Ireland, and Cyprus, where the technical compatibility of plug-in solar remains unproven. Potential risks like RCD 'blinding' and circuit overloading distinguish these networks from continental Schuko-based systems.

Amendment 386

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (UE) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 387

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 d – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that the removal of barriers to the deployment of small plug-in solar systems must be balanced with the need to safeguard safety, security and the proper functioning of the electricity system. While simplifying installation requirements is essential to accelerate decentralised renewable energy uptake, such measures should not compromise technical standards or system stability. By explicitly allowing proportionate measures, the amendment ensures coherence with existing Union and national rules governing grid operation, electrical safety and consumer protection. This reduces the risk of inconsistent implementation and potential safety or reliability concerns arising from unregulated installations. EMD Art. 15a (9))

Amendment 388

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 e – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment extends the application of tacit approval to permit-granting procedures for small-scale heat pump installations, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of existing deadlines. In practice, delays in administrative handling, even for low-risk and standardised installations, remain a significant barrier to rapid deployment. Given the limited environmental impact and high degree of technical standardisation of such installations, the use of tacit approval is justified and proportionate. It ensures that established timelines are respected in practice and prevents unnecessary procedural bottlenecks where authorities fail to act within the prescribed deadlines.

Amendment 389

Andrea Wechsler, Christian Ehler, Susana Solís Pérez, Angelika Niebler, Eva Maydell, Marion Walsmann, Aura Salla, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Letizia Moratti, Massimiliano Salini, Wouter Beke

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716)

Justification

The amendment clarifies and expands the scope of the overriding public interest presumption to reflect the full range of activities required for the energy transition, including refurbishment, modernisation, repowering and expansion of existing infrastructure. This ensures that not only new projects, but also the optimisation and upgrading of existing assets, can benefit from streamlined permitting. By explicitly covering electricity networks, gas and hydrogen infrastructure, CO₂ transport and storage, energy storage and recharging infrastructure, the amendment establishes a coherent and system-wide approach. This avoids regulatory fragmentation and ensures that all essential components of an integrated energy system are treated consistently. Furthermore, maintaining the presumption beyond the interim period, while allowing for a differentiated balancing of interests, strengthens legal certainty and provides a stable investment framework. It ensures that projects of strategic importance for decarbonisation, energy security and system integration can be effectively prioritised.

Amendment 390

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 391

Sarah Knafo

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 392

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 393

Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 394

András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 395

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 396

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Justification

The cultural heritage carve-out without defined criteria risks functioning as a general veto that local and national authorities can invoke to disapply the overriding public interest (OPI) presumption without meaningful scrutiny. This risk is not theoretical, documented patterns across multiple Member States confirm it. The deletion restores the full and uniform force of the OPI presumption across the EU. Critically, the overriding public interest presumption established in Article 16f is not absolute: it is a rebuttable presumption that can be disapplied where a permit-granting authority demonstrates, on the basis of the specific facts of the case, that a countervailing interest, including the protection of genuinely significant cultural heritage, outweighs the public interest in the renewable energy project. The clause is therefore redundant: genuine and documented heritage concerns can already prevail under the existing balancing test. What the carve-out actually does is lower the threshold for disapplying the presumption without case-specific justification, which undermines the very harmonisation the Directive seeks to achieve.

Amendment 397

Letizia Moratti, Massimiliano Salini, Fulvio Martusciello

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 398

Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Jorge Martín Frías, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. fr

Amendment 399

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Justification

Refurbishment , modernisation, repowering or expansion of existing installation should be given the same priority as new installations.

Amendment 400

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 401

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 402

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Justification

Administrative and permitting barriers continue to delay the rollout of charging infrastructure in several Member States. In line with AFIR terminology, recharging pools and their grid connections should therefore be recognised as being of overriding public interest, in order to streamline permitting, reduce delays and provide legal certainty for project developers.

Amendment 403

Aura Salla

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Justification

The presumption of overriding public interest should explicitly apply to DSO-led grid development and reinforcement measures required for the integration of renewable energy sources. Grid reinforcement is a necessary condition for meeting renewable energy targets, and such measures is therefore equally a matter of overriding public interest.

Amendment 404

Seán Kelly

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 405

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies and broadens the scope of the overriding public interest presumption to cover the full range of energy infrastructure projects necessary for achieving climate neutrality, including refurbishment, modernisation, repowering and expansion. This reflects the systemic nature of the energy transition, where not only new generation but also the upgrading and integration of existing infrastructure are essential. By explicitly including electricity networks, gas and hydrogen infrastructure, CO₂ transport and storage, and energy storage, the amendment ensures a coherent and technology-neutral approach. This avoids fragmentation and guarantees that all critical enabling infrastructure can benefit from streamlined permitting conditions. The addition of public health and safety as an explicit objective strengthens the legal basis of the presumption and aligns it with fundamental public interests recognised under Union law. It enhances legal certainty in the balancing of interests and supports more consistent decision-making across Member States.

Amendment 406

Niels Flemming Hansen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f

Or. en

Amendment 407

Andrea Wechsler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Article 16 f – paragraph 3 (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment exempts strategic energy infrastructure projects from parallel assessment obligations under Directive 2000/60/EU and Directive 2008/56/EU, as such projects generally do not adversely affect the status or quality of water bodies or marine environments in a manner requiring separate full assessments under those instruments. It further clarifies the non-application of Directive 2004/35/EC and Directive 2025/2360/EU in order to avoid disproportionate liability and soil related compliance requirements for projects that are necessary for grid expansion, hydrogen transport, CO₂ infrastructure and energy storage deployment. In addition, the amendment removes duplicative environmental impact assessment and species protection procedures under Directive 2011/92/EU, Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC where projects are carried out within existing infrastructure corridors, sites or functionally connected areas and involve limited additional impacts. In practice, these parallel procedures frequently lead to substantial permitting delays despite the strategic importance of the projects and the limited additional environmental impact compared to existing infrastructure.

Amendment 408

Andrea Wechsler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f – paragraph 4 (new)

Or. en

Justification

All grid infrastructure projects, including distribution networks, are essential for the effective integration of renewable energy sources and the functioning of the energy system as a whole. It is therefore necessary to ensure that exemptions are designed in a coherent and technology-neutral manner, allowing all relevant parts of the distribution grid to benefit across Member States. In practice, strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments are not systematically required for distribution grid projects, given their typically limited and localised impacts. Making such assessments a general precondition for benefiting from exemptions would create unnecessary administrative barriers and undermine the objective of accelerating grid deployment. A proportionate approach is therefore required, ensuring that exemptions can be applied where environmental risks are low or already sufficiently addressed, while maintaining full compliance with Union environmental law.

Amendment 409

Andrea Wechsler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b b (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f – paragraph 5 (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment allows Member States to introduce a clearly defined procedural cut-off date after the completion of consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU. In practice, permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects are frequently delayed by the repeated submission of additional information at very late stages of the process, including after consultations have formally concluded. The measure therefore improves procedural predictability and ensures that competent authorities can complete environmental assessments and permitting decisions within a reasonable timeframe, while fully preserving the consultation and participation requirements established under Directive 2011/92/EU. At the same time, the amendment maintains legal certainty by ensuring that all relevant information is submitted within a transparent and foreseeable procedural framework.

Amendment 410

Andrea Wechsler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b c (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f – paragraph 6 (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the application of species protection rules under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC to strategic energy infrastructure projects where appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented. In practice, infrastructure projects such as electricity grids, hydrogen infrastructure or energy storage facilities may involve unavoidable incidental impacts on individual specimens despite the application of preventive measures. The clarification ensures that such incidental effects are not automatically qualified as deliberate killing or disturbance within the meaning of Union nature protection legislation where projects comply with proportionate mitigation requirements. This improves legal certainty for competent authorities and project developers while maintaining the substantive protection objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Amendment 411

Andrea Wechsler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b d (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 f – paragraph 7 (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that mitigation measures under Directive 2009/147/EC and Directive 92/43/EEC should only be required where they are necessary to avoid an adverse effect on the conservation status of the population concerned. In practice, energy infrastructure projects are frequently required to implement extensive mitigation obligations even in cases where no measurable impact at population level can be established. The clarification therefore aligns the application of species protection requirements more closely with the conservation objectives of Union nature legislation and ensures a more proportionate assessment framework for strategic energy infrastructure projects. This improves legal certainty and reduces unnecessary procedural complexity while maintaining the protection of affected species populations.

Amendment 412

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 413

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 414

Niels Flemming Hansen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – title

Or. en

Justification

Allowing parallel implementation of compensatory measures is essential for accelerating permitting. To ensure a meaningful impact, the scope must extend beyond Natura 2000 sites to include Annex IV species and all national compensatory requirements.

Amendment 415

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The clarification of the assessment of alternative solutions through objective criteria, such as time and cost, is a necessary step towards improving procedural efficiency and legal certainty. In particular for onshore wind projects, this approach can significantly reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, including the need to assess alternatives in less suitable peripheral areas, thereby facilitating more timely project development. At the same time, further flexibility should be granted to Member States to limit the scope of alternative assessments where appropriate. Allowing such discretion would better reflect national planning frameworks and administrative practices, while avoiding disproportionate requirements that could delay projects without delivering meaningful environmental benefits.

Amendment 416

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 417

Seán Kelly

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 418

Niels Flemming Hansen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Allowing parallel implementation of compensatory measures is essential for accelerating permitting. To ensure a meaningful impact, the scope must extend beyond Natura 2000 sites to include Annex IV species and all national compensatory requirements.

Amendment 419

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 420

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 g – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The increased flexibility introduced by this provision is a positive step towards more efficient and adaptable permitting procedures. However, the inclusion of the term “in justified cases” introduces ambiguity, as it lacks a clear legal definition and may lead to divergent interpretations across Member States. Such open-ended wording risks undermining legal certainty for both competent authorities and project developers, potentially resulting in inconsistent application and increased litigation. Removing this qualifier would ensure a clearer and more predictable framework, thereby supporting effective and uniform implementation of the Directive.

Amendment 421

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 422

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that grid connection procedures, including the granting of connection rights or approvals, are an integral part of the permit-granting process for stand-alone energy storage projects. In practice, delays related to grid access constitute a major bottleneck and can significantly hinder the timely deployment of storage capacity. By aligning the terminology with the actual structure of administrative and technical processes, the amendment enhances legal certainty and avoids inconsistent interpretation across Member States. It ensures that all relevant procedural steps are covered in a coherent manner, without creating artificial distinctions between permits and essential enabling procedures.

Amendment 423

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 424

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 425

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with change proposed to Article 17.

Amendment 426

Aura Salla

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Offering grid connection and making a grid connection contract is very different from e.g. environmental permits. Grid connection is a contract between system operator and connecting customer.

Amendment 427

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 428

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment improves legal clarity by replacing the reference to “grid connection permits” with “grid connections”, reflecting the fact that grid connections are generally governed by contractual and technical procedures rather than administrative permitting processes. This alignment enhances legal accuracy and facilitates more consistent national implementation. Furthermore, maintaining Member State flexibility regarding the application of the exemption in Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas ensures a proportionate approach and preserves the possibility to apply appropriate environmental safeguards where necessary. Aligning the terminology on protected areas with other provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, in particular Article 15e, also strengthens legal coherence and consistency across the Directive. In addition, streamlined and technology-neutral permitting conditions for all smaller storage installations are essential to accelerate the deployment of flexibility solutions needed for a decarbonised energy system, while avoiding disproportionate administrative burdens for low-risk projects.

Amendment 429

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 430

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with changes proposed to Article 17

Amendment 431

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 432

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 433

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 434

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with changes proposed to Article 17

Amendment 435

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the terminology by replacing “grid connection permits” with “grid connections”, thereby reflecting the practical reality that grid access is generally governed by technical and contractual arrangements rather than standalone administrative permits. This improves legal accuracy and reduces the risk of divergent interpretation across Member States. Furthermore, increasing the capacity threshold ensures a more proportionate application of accelerated timelines, focusing administrative efforts on projects of greater system relevance while avoiding unnecessary procedural pressure for smaller installations. This contributes to a more efficient allocation of administrative resources.

Amendment 436

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Stand-alone energy storage is necessary for system flexibility and renewable integration. Temporary construction-phase nitrogen emissions should not delay projects that reduce reliance on fossil generation and support long-term emission reductions.

Amendment 437

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – title

Or. en

Amendment 438

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – title

Or. en

Justification

The permit-granting procedure should apply at the level of the recharging pool, since one or more recharging stations located at the same site normally share a single grid connection. This also aligns the terminology with the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR).

Amendment 439

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – title

Or. en

Justification

The amendment aligns the terminology with the definitions established in Union law, in particular under Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 (AFIR), which refers to “recharging pools” rather than individual “recharging stations”. This ensures consistency across the legislative framework and avoids fragmentation in interpretation and implementation. Using harmonised terminology enhances legal clarity for Member States, competent authorities and market participants, and facilitates coherent application of permitting rules across the Union. It also better reflects the operational reality, where recharging infrastructure is typically deployed and managed in clusters rather than as isolated units.

Amendment 440

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 441

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – Paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 442

Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 443

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 444

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 445

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with change proposed to Article 17.

Amendment 446

Aura Salla

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Offering grid connection and making a grid connection contract is very different from e.g. environmental permits. Grid connection is a contract between system operator and connecting customer.

Amendment 447

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 448

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The amendment aligns the terminology with the definitions established in Union law, in particular under Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 (AFIR), which refers to “recharging pools” rather than individual “recharging stations”. This ensures consistency across the legislative framework and avoids fragmentation in interpretation and implementation. Using harmonised terminology enhances legal clarity for Member States, competent authorities and market participants, and facilitates coherent application of permitting rules across the Union. It also better reflects the operational reality, where recharging infrastructure is typically deployed and managed in clusters rather than as isolated units.

Amendment 449

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 450

Barry Andrews, Brigitte van den Berg

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 451

Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 452

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 453

Rudi Kennes

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 454

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with changes proposed to Paragraph 17.

Amendment 455

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 456

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 457

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the terminology by replacing “grid connection permits” with “grid connections”, thereby better reflecting the practical and legal nature of connection procedures, which are typically not governed by standalone administrative permits. This improves legal clarity and ensures consistent interpretation across Member States. Raising the capacity threshold allows for a more proportionate application of simplified permitting rules, taking into account the limited environmental impact and standardised nature of smaller recharging installations. This reduces unnecessary administrative burdens and supports the faster deployment of charging infrastructure. At the same time, the amendment maintains appropriate safeguards by preserving the exclusion of Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas. It therefore ensures a balanced approach, combining procedural simplification with the continued protection of sensitive environments.

Amendment 458

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 2 a

Or. en

Amendment 459

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Or. en

Amendment 460

András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 461

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 462

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 463

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 464

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 465

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with changes proposed to Article 17.

Amendment 466

Barry Andrews, Brigitte van den Berg, Bart Groothuis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 467

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 468

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the terminology by replacing “grid connection permits” with “grid connections”, thereby aligning the provision with the practical and legal reality of connection processes, which are typically not subject to standalone permitting procedures. This enhances legal precision and avoids inconsistent interpretation across Member States. Raising the capacity threshold ensures a more proportionate application of accelerated timelines, focusing on installations of greater relevance for the deployment of charging infrastructure. This allows administrative resources to be allocated more efficiently while avoiding unnecessary procedural constraints for smaller installations. Increasing the threshold from 100 to 300 kw is consistent with other suggested changes for a more proportionate application of simplified permitting rules.

Amendment 469

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 h – paragraph 3 a

Or. en

Justification

Storage systems can fulfil both grid-related and market-related functions simultaneously. The strict regulatory separation between grid and market functions has so far prevented this dual use. Practical experience and studies show that multi-use scenarios can significantly reduce the overall costs of storage projects. Treating temporal and spatial energy shifting equally creates a coherent regulatory framework and enables storage to be used as a cost-effective alternative to conventional grid expansion. This integrates renewable energy and reduces costs.

Amendment 470

Anna Stürgkh, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 i – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Recharging infrastructure is indispensable for transport electrification. Temporary construction-phase nitrogen emissions should not delay projects that enable lasting reductions in transport emissions and air pollution.

Amendment 471

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – title

Or. en

Amendment 472

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – title

Or. en

Amendment 473

Andrea Wechsler, Norbert Lins, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – title

Or. en

Justification

The amendment extends the scope of the provision to explicitly include the hybridisation of recharging infrastructure, thereby reflecting the growing integration of energy generation, storage and consumption at local level. In practice, recharging pools are increasingly combined with renewable energy sources and storage solutions, requiring a coherent and adapted permitting framework. By clarifying that such hybrid configurations are covered, the amendment enhances legal certainty and avoids regulatory gaps that could otherwise delay the deployment of integrated energy solutions. It ensures that permitting procedures adequately reflect technological developments and system integration needs. This targeted adjustment supports the efficient rollout of flexible and decentralised energy systems, contributing to both the electrification of transport and the integration of renewable energy, while maintaining consistency within the overall permitting framework.

Amendment 474

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 475

Letizia Moratti, Massimiliano Salini, Fulvio Martusciello

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 476

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 477

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 478

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Hybrid charging sites, namely recharging stations combined with behind-the-meter battery storage, should be clearly covered. Such sites can reduce peak demand, ease pressure on the grid and enable ultra-fast charging where grid capacity is constrained. Their exclusion may create legal uncertainty, slow down investment in charging infrastructure and undermine the simplified regulatory treatment intended for hybridisation.

Amendment 479

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The amendment extends the clarified assessment framework for hybridisation projects to recharging infrastructure, thereby ensuring consistency with the increasing integration of energy generation, storage and consumption. In practice, the addition of storage or other components to existing installations whether generation plants or recharging pools typically results in limited and predictable incremental impacts. By ensuring that environmental screening and assessment focus only on the additional impact compared to the original installation, the amendment avoids unnecessary duplication of procedures and reduces administrative burden. This is in line with the principle of proportionality and supports more efficient permitting processes. The clarification enhances legal certainty and ensures a coherent application of the rules across different types of hybrid projects, thereby facilitating the deployment of integrated energy solutions without lowering environmental protection standards.

Amendment 480

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 481

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 482

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 483

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The amendment extends the scope of the provision to include recharging infrastructure, reflecting the increasing convergence of energy and transport systems. In practice, recharging pools are becoming an integral part of the energy system and should be treated consistently with renewable energy installations. By clarifying that both operation and hybridisation remain possible in cases of changes to land-use status, the amendment enhances legal certainty and protects existing investments. This is particularly important for infrastructure with long lifecycles, where changes in planning status could otherwise create unnecessary barriers. The clarification ensures a coherent and future-proof framework, supporting the continued use and optimisation of existing sites while respecting Member States’ planning competences. It thereby facilitates system integration and the efficient deployment of both renewable energy and charging infrastructure.

Amendment 484

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 485

Andrea Wechsler, Norbert Lins, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 j – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that existing biogas installations adapted for biomethane production should benefit from the same streamlined procedural framework as comparable projects under Article 16j. This facilitates the efficient deployment of biomethane projects while ensuring that relevant environmental requirements continue to apply to the modified elements of the installation.

Amendment 486

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point b (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Or. en

Justification

Storage systems can fulfil both grid-related and market-related functions simultaneously. The strict regulatory separation between grid and market functions has so far prevented this dual use. Practical experience and studies show that multi-use scenarios can significantly reduce the overall costs of storage projects. Treating temporal and spatial energy shifting equally creates a coherent regulatory framework and enables storage to be used as a cost-effective alternative to conventional grid expansion. This integrate renewable energy and reduces costs.

Amendment 487

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point c (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Or. en

Justification

Storage systems can fulfil both grid-related and market-related functions simultaneously. The strict regulatory separation between grid and market functions has so far prevented this dual use. Practical experience and studies show that multi-use scenarios can significantly reduce the overall costs of storage projects. Treating temporal and spatial energy shifting equally creates a coherent regulatory framework and enables storage to be used as a cost-effective alternative to conventional grid expansion. This integrates renewable energy and reduces costs.

Amendment 488

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 k (new)

Or. en

Justification

Cable pooling enables more efficient use of the grid by utilising the complementary generation profiles of wind and solar power, as well as the storage capacity of batteries, to ensure a more even load at the connection point. This reduces grid congestion and lowers connection costs. The time limit on unused connection rights removes a significant barrier to investment, as connection capacity is blocked by inactive projects in many Member States.

Amendment 489

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 l (new)

Or. en

Amendment 490

Jens Geier

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new)

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 16 m (new)

Or. en

Justification

Article 16l new introduces the following three new proposals: 1.an exemption from the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for grid projects, 2.an exemption from Soil Monitoring Directive (SMD) for grid projects, and 3. significant procedural simplifications regarding the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

Amendment 491

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – title

Or. en

Amendment 492

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – title

Or. en

Justification

Clarification. A system operator cannot issue an (administrative) permit.

Amendment 493

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – title

Or. en

Justification

The amendment corrects the terminology by replacing “grid connection permits” with “grid connections”, thereby aligning the provision with the legal and practical reality that grid access is typically governed by contractual and technical arrangements rather than distinct administrative permitting procedures. This clarification enhances legal certainty and avoids inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation across Member States, particularly in light of differing national regulatory frameworks for grid access. It also prevents potential conflicts between administrative law concepts and established practices in energy system operation.

Amendment 494

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 495

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 496

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 497

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 498

Anna Stürgkh, Martin Hojsík, Bart Groothuis, Brigitte van den Berg, Morten Løkkegaard, Andreas Glück, Barry Andrews, Christophe Grudler, Sigrid Friis

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

Clarification. A system operator cannot issue an (administrative) permit.

Amendment 499

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

The amendment replaces the term “grid connection permit” with “grid connections” in order to reflect the legal and operational reality that grid access is generally not subject to a single administrative permit but is governed by a combination of technical procedures and contractual arrangements. This clarification avoids a misleading characterisation of grid connection processes and ensures consistency with national regulatory frameworks, where system operators play a central role. It thereby reduces the risk of divergent interpretation and legal uncertainty across Member States.

Amendment 500

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 501

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 502

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Justification

The amendment introduces more realistic and differentiated timelines for permit-granting procedures, taking into account the increasing technical complexity and scale of projects, in particular in the case of repowering and hybridisation. Experience shows that overly short deadlines risk being systematically exceeded or extended, thereby undermining legal certainty and the credibility of the framework. By extending the standard deadline while allowing for justified exceptions in cases of safety concerns, technical incompatibilities or significant capacity increases, the amendment ensures a more proportionate and implementable approach. This enables competent authorities to carry out necessary assessments properly without creating undue delays. At the same time, the amendment maintains the objective of accelerated deployment by providing clear timelines and limiting extensions to well-defined circumstances. It therefore strikes a balanced approach between procedural efficiency, system security and legal robustness.

Amendment 503

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 504

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 505

Sigrid Friis, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 506

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 507

András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 508

Mariateresa Vivaldini, Elena Donazzan, Francesco Torselli, Nicola Procaccini, Alessandro Ciriani, Carlo Ciccioli, Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 509

Bruno Tobback

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 510

Borys Budka, Adam Jarubas, Krzysztof Hetman, Mirosława Nykiel

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 511

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Aleksandar Nikolic, Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, András Gyürk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 512

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 513

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 514

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 515

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 516

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

In addition to strict timelines for small renewable installations, storage, recharging stations and solar on artificial structures, the amendments introduce strict response timelines for system operators for other renewable installations inside and outside renewable acceleration areas, recharging pools and shore-side electricity. Response timelines of system operators are often disproportionately long, speeding up this part of the project is essential for the acceleration of the energy transition. The amendment also tasks the system operator to digitalise the portion of the grid where full connection cannot be granted. The absence of digitalisation and the resulting lack of real time data leads to underutilisation and non-optimal use of existing infrastructure. Digitalisation of grids is therefore necessary, in particular, those parts of the grid where grid capacity is scarce. Where full connection to the grid cannot be granted, the amendment also tasks the system operator to present three simultaneous options to the developers instead of offering a flexible connection agreement first. This gives developers the choice of the most favourable option for them. Finally, the amendment introduces a right to grid extension for renewables, storage, recharging stations, recharging pools or shore-side electricity, because of their importance for the energy transition and an increased electrification rate.

Amendment 517

Michael Bloss

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Justification

In addition to strict timelines for small renewable installations, storage, recharging stations and solar on artificial structures, the amendments introduces strict response timelines for system operators for other renewable installations inside and outside renewable acceleration areas, recharging pools and shore-side electricity. Response timelines of system operators are often disproportionately long, speeding up this part of the project is essential for the acceleration of the energy transition. The amendment also tasks the system operator to digitalise the portion of the grid where full connection cannot be granted. The absence of digitalisation and the resulting lack of real time data leads to underutilisation and non-optimal use of existing infrastructure. Digitalisation of grids is therefore necessary, in particular those parts of the grid where grid capacity is scarce. Where full connection to the grid cannot be granted, the amendment also tasks the system operator to present three simultaneous options to the developers instead of offering a flexible connection agreement first. This gives developers the choice of the most favourable option for them. Finally, the amendment introduces a right to grid extension for renewables, storage, recharging stations, recharging pools or shore-side electricity, because of their importance for the energy transition and an increased electrification rate.

Amendment 518

Sarah Knafo

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 519

Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 520

Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 521

András Gyürk, Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 522

Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 523

Andrea Wechsler, Eva Maydell, Hildegard Bentele

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2018/2001

Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies the threshold for accepting grid connection requests by replacing the ambiguous notion of “affect” with the more precise criterion of “endanger” grid stability, reliability and safety. This ensures that only material risks to the operation of the electricity system justify refusal or delay of a connection. The revised wording enhances legal certainty and prevents overly restrictive interpretations that could unnecessarily hinder grid access. It provides clearer guidance to system operators and competent authorities, while maintaining the necessary safeguards for secure system operation. By striking a more proportionate balance between facilitating connections and ensuring system integrity, the amendment supports the timely integration of renewable energy and related infrastructure without compromising technical standards.