On 18 March this year, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted, with 195 votes in favour, its Opinion C/2026/3238 on the European Commission's new electricity grids legislative package. It is a lengthy, technical document that analyses three key legal instruments: the Communication COM(2025) 1005 final, a new Regulation on trans-European energy infrastructure that will replace the current TEN-E, and a Directive accelerating permitting procedures that will simultaneously amend RED III, the electricity market Directive and the gas and hydrogen Directive.
The scale of the challenge is extraordinary. According to the Commission, more than 1.2 trillion euros must be mobilised in electricity grids up to 2040 to make the European energy transition possible. That figure will translate directly into higher network tariffs, and this is where the EESC sets out the opinion's first line of argument: grid expansion cannot become a factor that accelerates European deindustrialisation. The underlying question is which regulatory framework makes it possible to reconcile this massive investment with industrial competitiveness and affordability for consumers.
Optimise before expanding: the first paradigm shift
One of the opinion's central messages is as simple to state as it is transformative to apply: the efficient use of existing grids must be prioritised before expanding them. The EESC argues that flexibility solutions such as storage, self-consumption, energy communities, aggregators and demand-side management can substantially reduce the need for physical grid expansion. This approach has a double benefit: lower costs for end users and greater social acceptance of the projects that do need to be built.
The logic fits with what is already being rolled out in Spain through Royal Decree 88/2026 on demand aggregation and flexibility, but the European framework proposes going further. In particular, the EESC calls for significant emphasis on Distribution System Operators (DSOs), since most renewable generation, electrified demand and flexibility resources connect precisely at distribution level, not transmission level. Without sufficient powers, resources and incentives for DSOs, the transition falls short in the last kilometre.
Injection tariffs: economic signals for developers
The opinion's second block is probably the most technical and the one that will most affect Spanish renewable developers. The EESC calls for an urgent revision of Regulation (EU) 838/2010, which currently caps generation injection tariffs at 0.5 €/MWh. That ceiling, the rapporteurs argue, contradicts the cost-reflectivity principle established by Regulation (EU) 2019/943 on the electricity market itself.
The proposal is to replace the single ceiling with maximum and minimum caps and tariffs based on load rather than volume. The rationale is clear: generation located far from consumption centres or in areas with insufficient capacity creates transmission and congestion needs that are not currently reflected in the costs borne by developers. Internalising those costs —moderately and predictably— would also help reduce tariff pressure on end consumers.
For developers with a 2026-2030 pipeline, this is a signal to monitor closely. The future design of injection tariffs could substantially change the business case for projects in peripheral or congested areas.
Permitting procedures: resources before deadlines
The opinion's third strand addresses the acceleration of permitting procedures, a topic of particular relevance for the Spanish market following the debate opened by RDL 7/2026 (Royal Decree-Law, Spain) on Renewables Acceleration Areas. The EESC's position is nuanced and deserves attention.
On the one hand, it supports acceleration, but with three important caveats. First, it prioritises giving competent authorities sufficient resources before imposing rigid deadlines: without administrative capacity, deadlines are unenforceable. Second, it asks that environmental decisions and grid connection permits be excluded from the positive administrative silence proposed by the Commission, safeguarding transparency, quality and the protection of third-party rights. And third, it defends public participation as a structural condition of the transition: the redistribution of economic benefits does not replace the right of local communities, landowners and NGOs to be informed and to comment.
This EESC position converges with the internal debates under way in Spain on the ZAR (Renewables Acceleration Areas) and on the relationship between faster processing and the quality of environmental permitting. The European framework could end up endorsing or correcting parts of the path Spain has already embarked on.
Asymmetric protection and electro-intensive industry
One aspect that stands out for the industrial sector is the EESC's call for asymmetric protection. Greater flexibility in grid use must be accompanied by reinforced protection for two groups: vulnerable consumers with low flexibility potential, and electro-intensive industries requiring continuous, stable supply for reasons of operational integrity and safety. This distinction between flexible industry and continuity industry is a useful line of argument for many sectors (chemicals, steel, ceramics, glass, food) before network operators and the regulator.
What it means for developers, industry and public administrations
For developers and utilities, the legislative package to be adopted over 2026-2027 will shape the next generation of permits. It is worth following legislative procedures 2025/0399(COD) and 2025/0400(COD) closely in order to anticipate the changes coming in due diligence, environmental permitting and projects' regulatory strategy.
For electro-intensive industry, the EESC's differentiation between structural flexibility and operational continuity opens room for manoeuvre before network operators and the regulator. The technical arguments need to be prepared now, not when the new tariffs arrive.
For public administrations, the insistence that the PNIEC (national integrated energy and climate plans) guide grid plans and that local authorities take part in a structured way fits with the need to strengthen territorial planning capacities in the energy field.
At auma auma we support developers, industries, utilities and public administrations at this intersection of energy, grid and permitting. The new European framework is not just a regulatory reform: it is the design of the electricity grid that will underpin European competitiveness for the coming decades. Those who can get ahead of it —technically, legally and strategically— will be the ones best placed to make the most of it.