Five European Union countries — Bulgaria, Finland, France, Poland, and Sweden — are pushing back against what they see as an increasingly centralised approach by the European Commission to planning Europe’s future electricity infrastructure. According to a document obtained by Euronews, the countries argue that Brussels risks slowing the green transition, increasing costs, and weakening energy security if it attempts to manage Europe’s power grid through a heavily top-down model. Instead, they are advocating for a more regionally coordinated system that gives national governments and transmission operators greater authority over infrastructure planning.
The dispute centres around the EU’s proposed “Grids Package,” introduced in December to modernise Europe’s electricity infrastructure and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The package includes plans for stronger EU-wide coordination, including the creation of a “central scenario” to guide long-term investments across member states. However, the five-country coalition believes the European Commission underestimates the complexity and regional differences of Europe’s energy systems. They argue that electricity infrastructure is too politically sensitive and technically diverse to be designed through a single model directed from Brussels.
The disagreement reflects broader tensions within the EU following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which intensified concerns about energy security and accelerated the push toward electrification and renewable energy integration. As Europe attempts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and strengthen energy resilience, the European Commission has sought greater strategic oversight over infrastructure planning. Yet some member states fear this could erode national sovereignty and reduce their ability to control domestic energy priorities.
The coalition argues that national grid operators and regional authorities possess the operational expertise needed to identify real infrastructure bottlenecks, security risks, and investment priorities. They warn that excessive centralisation could result in costly projects that appear efficient on paper but fail to deliver practical value. In particular, they fear a future where expensive interconnectors are built without corresponding domestic grid upgrades, leading to underused infrastructure and higher electricity bills for consumers.
Sweden has emerged as one of the strongest critics of the proposals. Swedish Energy Minister Ebba Busch recently announced a pause in plans for a new electricity cable to Denmark, partly in response to EU proposals regarding the use of congestion revenues — funds generated when electricity lines reach maximum capacity. Stockholm argues that member states should retain greater flexibility over how these revenues are spent rather than having them redirected under EU-level planning mechanisms. Sweden is also reconsidering future power cable projects with Finland.
At the heart of the debate is a struggle over institutional power within the European Union. The five countries accuse the European Commission of moving beyond coordination and edging toward political control over infrastructure investment decisions. They insist that member states must retain authority over their national energy mixes and strategic priorities, while transmission system operators should continue serving as the technical experts guiding grid development.
Despite the conflict, the countries are not rejecting European cooperation entirely. They support cross-border energy integration and acknowledge the importance of interconnected infrastructure for achieving decarbonisation and energy security goals. Ongoing negotiations aim to find a compromise between stronger EU coordination and national control as the bloc prepares for major energy investments expected to total €1.2 trillion by 2040.