France and Sweden are pushing back against a European Commission proposal that would require EU member states to share more of the financial burden for upgrading the continent’s power infrastructure. At the center of the dispute is a broader effort to modernize and expand the EU electricity grid, a critical pillar of the bloc’s strategy to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. While Brussels argues that deeper integration and shared financing are essential for a cleaner and more resilient energy system, several member states fear the plan would unfairly redistribute national revenues and erode domestic control.
The Commission’s “grids package,” unveiled last December, aims to significantly strengthen the EU electricity grid so it can transport renewable energy more efficiently across borders. As wind farms in the North Sea and solar plants in southern Spain generate increasing volumes of clean power, transmission lines must be expanded to move electricity thousands of kilometers to where it is needed. To support this transformation, the proposal would pool part of the revenues that national grid operators earn from cross-border electricity trade, using those funds to finance new interconnectors and so-called “energy highways” that link underconnected regions.
These revenues—known as congestion revenues—are generated when electricity prices differ between countries or bidding zones. Exporting countries like Sweden and France often earn substantial sums from these price gaps. Traditionally, those funds are reinvested domestically to relieve bottlenecks and stabilize internal markets. Sweden, for example, divides its territory into four bidding zones reflecting regional supply and demand differences. Its grid operator, Svenska kraftnät, uses congestion income to balance power flows between the hydro-rich north and the more densely populated south.
Under the Commission’s plan, a portion of unspent congestion revenues—around a quarter—would be redirected toward cross-border infrastructure projects benefiting the wider EU electricity grid. Brussels argues this is necessary to prevent fragmentation and ensure the energy transition proceeds evenly across member states. However, Sweden’s government strongly opposes what it sees as a transfer of “Swedish people’s money” to solve other countries’ infrastructure gaps. In 2025 alone, Sweden collected roughly €2.5 billion in congestion revenues, building up an unspent reserve of €7.5–8 billion. Although much of that is already earmarked for domestic upgrades, Stockholm worries EU rules could disrupt long-term planning.
France, heavily reliant on nuclear power and also a major electricity exporter, has raised additional concerns about governance. Paris objects to provisions that would give the European Commission authority to determine how and when certain funds are allocated. Even after adjustments to ensure revenues formally remain with member states, French officials view the proposal as a step too far in centralizing control over national energy systems.
Other countries, including Austria, have echoed similar anxieties about losing flexibility to address internal congestion challenges. The broader conflict highlights ongoing tensions between national sovereignty and collective EU action. As negotiations continue under Cyprus’s EU presidency, the debate underscores a fundamental question: how to finance and manage the transformation of the EU electricity grid without deepening political divides among member states.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-sweden-eu-grids-package-electricity-plan