Reforming Decision-Making in Trans-European Networks for Energy

The document critiques the European Commission's December 2020 proposal for a revised TEN-E Regulation, highlighting risks of conflict of interest due to the influence of Transmission System Operators (TSOs) and a lack of transparency in selecting Projects of Common Interest (PCIs). It proposes integrating the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) into the decision-making process for PCI lists and Ten-Year Network Development Plans (TYNDPs) to provide independent, science-based oversight. Key recommendations include adopting PCI lists via separate delegated acts per infrastructure category, mandating public consultations on regional lists, and establishing a common assessment method across regional Groups to prevent bias.

• The current TEN-E Proposal is criticized for a deficient governance system characterized by the significant influence of the European Networks of Transmission System Operators for Electricity and Gas (ENTSO-E and ENTSOG) and a lack of transparency, which may lead to conflicts of interest since project promoters are often members of these networks.
• To mitigate bias and ensure alignment with climate targets, the document recommends involving the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) in TEN-E decision-making, as it is the only entity solely focused on achieving the Union's climate targets.
• The author proposes that the Union list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) be adopted through separate delegated acts for each infrastructure category, rather than a single act, to allow the European Parliament and Council more effective control and the ability to take differentiated positions.
• Transparency in the PCI selection process is currently deemed insufficient; the document recommends publishing meeting agendas, minutes, and participant lists for regional Groups, and mandating public consultations on draft regional lists.
• The document suggests establishing a common assessment method for all regional Groups to ensure objectivity and comparability in project rankings, preventing the use of tailor-made methods that favor specific interests.
• Regarding Union-wide Ten-Year Network Development Plans (TYNDPs), the document argues that the ESABCC should define qualitative scenarios and independently assess joint scenarios, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methodologies, and infrastructure gaps reports to prevent the overestimation of infrastructure needs by TSOs.

APA

Ramo, G., & Toporek, M. (2021). Reforming Decision-Making in Trans-European Networks for Energy. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/wfrbeshx/reforming-decision-making-in-ten-e.pdf

Chicago

Ramo, Guillermo, and Marta Toporek. Reforming Decision-Making in Trans-European Networks for Energy. ClientEarth, 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/wfrbeshx/reforming-decision-making-in-ten-e.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ramo |first1=Guillermo |last2=Toporek |first2=Marta |title=Reforming Decision-Making in Trans-European Networks for Energy |publisher=ClientEarth |date=June 2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/wfrbeshx/reforming-decision-making-in-ten-e.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ramo2021reforming, author = {Ramo, Guillermo and Toporek, Marta}, title = {{Reforming Decision-Making in Trans-European Networks for Energy}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, month = jun, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/wfrbeshx/reforming-decision-making-in-ten-e.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }