Proposal to simplify European environmental regulations: energy sector out of the nitrogen gridlock?

Background to the proposals

The energy transition is not progressing as quickly as hoped. Due to lengthy legal procedures, irrevocable permits for the realisation of (sustainable) energy infrastructure often take years to obtain. An important question that therefore arises in practice is how these procedures can be expedited.

One possible cause of the delays is the nature and environmental studies that must underpin the granting of permits for (energy) projects. Examples include the obligation to draw up an environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment for projects with potentially significant nitrogen effects. 

Not only procedurally – drawing up these studies can take a lot of time – but also in terms of content, nature and environmental studies can lead to delays. Nitrogen deposition released during the construction of new energy infrastructure is a major obstacle in this context. Due to the exceeding of critical deposition values, in many places there is simply no room for (temporary) additional nitrogen deposition in Natura 2000 areas. For more information, see our blog: Netherlands in further lockdown? Council of State limits internal netting of nitrogen emissions | Stibbe; and our critical reflection on this: A rethink of the additionality requirement | Stibbe (in Dutch).

For many projects, it is therefore currently difficult, or at least time-consuming, to comply with nature regulations (whether or not via a nature permit). This has a negative impact not only on initiators, but also on nature itself. After all, the expansion of the energy infrastructure is necessary for adding new renewable energy sources to the grid and for the electrification and sustainability of industry and transport. As a result, such projects will almost always result in a greater and, moreover, permanent reduction in nitrogen deposition in the long term, despite a short-term increase in nitrogen deposition during the construction phase. The realisation of energy projects also contributes to the achievement of Dutch and European climate targets, which also helps nature in other areas.

What is the European Commission proposing? 

In response to this, on Wednesday 10 December 2025, the European Commission (Commission) presented the eighth omnibus proposal, consisting of six legislative proposals targeting different sectors. In addition, as part of the European Grids Package and Energy Highways initiative, the Commission has proposed two amendments to existing regulations on the construction of energy infrastructure. 

The eighth omnibus for reducing administrative burdens in European environmental legislation consists of the following proposals: 

• An amendment to the Battery Regulation (2023/1542) and the Regulation on the reporting of environmental data from industrial installations (2024/1244, the IEP Regulation, which we wrote about earlier in this blog);
• A Regulation suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility for batteries and waste batteries and packaging and packaging waste;
• A Directive suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of authorised representatives for extended producer responsibility for waste, waste electrical and electronical equipment and single use plastic waste;
• A Regulation on speeding up environmental assessments;
• A Directive on simplification of certain requirements for the establishment of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information (amending the INSPIRE Directive; 2007/2);
• A Directive on simplification of some requirements and reduction of administrative burden.

In addition, as mentioned above, the Commission has made two proposals to modernise European energy infrastructure: 

• Amendment to the third version of the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001, the REDIII), the Directive on common rules for the internal market for electricity (2019/944, the Electricity Directive) and the Directive on common rules for the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen (2024/1788, the Gas Directive) to speed up authorisation procedures;
• Amendment of the Regulation on trans-European networks for energy (2022/869, the TEN-E Regulation).

Many of the amendments are procedural in nature: harmonised deadlines, a single digital point of contact and streamlined procedures for various environmental studies. However, the significance of these rules for Dutch practice is limited, as the digital environmental desk and relatively short deadlines are already in use here, for example. Our discussion below is therefore limited to the two most significant changes.

Nitrogen emissions from energy infrastructure exempted from the appropriate assessment

Perhaps the most important change is included in the proposed amendment to the Electricity Directive. Partly at the insistence of the Netherlands, it will include a presumption that the construction and use of infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of energy will lead to a long-term reduction in nitrogen emissions (Article 8, paragraph 11 of the proposed amendment). For this reason, it will no longer be necessary for such projects to include the consequences of nitrogen emissions released during construction in an appropriate assessment. This could offer a solution to the problem described above: the construction of energy infrastructure is delayed or, in the worst case, cancelled due to a short-term increase in nitrogen deposition, even though this will lead to a net reduction in nitrogen deposition in the long term. 

At the same time, it should be noted that this is not a panacea. For example, a preliminary assessment and, if necessary, an appropriate assessment will still have to be carried out with regard to other consequences of the project for Natura 2000 areas (e.g. vibrations, water quality, etc.). In that context it is worth noting that the proposal also includes a limitation on the scope of the assessment. When modifying/modernising existing energy infrastructure, only the consequences of the modification – and not the unchanged parts – are subject to an EIA and appropriate assessment (Article 8, paragraph 12). This differs from the line taken by the Division in the Rendac ruling (see again Netherlands further locked down? Council of State limits internal offsetting of nitrogen emissions | Stibbe) and could provide further alleviation.

Consequences for practice

All in all, this proposal is therefore expected to significantly ease the pressure on the granting of permits for energy infrastructure projects. Initial reactions have therefore been positive (FD: "Cautious optimism about European proposal to relax nitrogen rules"(in Dutch)). Not only will nitrogen emissions no longer need to be included in an appropriate assessment, but only the new environmental effects compared to the existing situation will need to be assessed. 

We would like to point out that there already seems to be a possibility to roll out sustainability projects that lead to a short-term increase in nitrogen deposition but ultimately contribute to a permanent reduction in nitrogen deposition without a nature permit. Moreover, unlike in this proposal, that possibility is not limited to the construction of energy infrastructure, but can also be applied to other sustainability measures. The requirement is that the project must be designated as a management measure by the competent authority. Read our previous blog about the government's proposal to make sustainability measures exempt from (nature) permits.

A restriction on the scope of the project concept

Pursuant to Article 1, the proposal for a Regulation on speeding up environmental assessments applies to environmental assessments of plans, programmes and projects within the scope of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60), the SEA Directive (2001/42), Birds Directive (2009/147), EIA Directive (2011/92) and the Habitats Directive (1992/43). The definitions of terms used in the regulation are in line with the SEA and EIA Directives (Article 2). In addition to a large number of procedural changes, Article 5 includes a provision on the scope of the concept of a project.

This provision stipulates that changes and extensions to existing projects must be screened for potentially significant environmental effects. However, an environmental assessment only needs to be carried out if the change or extension consists of major works that pose risks to the environment equal to or greater than those posed by the original project. 

The explanation of this provision is extremely limited, but the consequences appear to be far-reaching. The provision suggests that the EIA (assessment) obligation for changes and extensions to projects is limited to cases where the effects of the change, considered in isolation, exceed the effects of the existing project. We cannot however be completely sure about this as recital 13 of the preamble states that the Regulation does not seek to change the criteria under which environmental assessments are required. 

The question is also whether the same applies to the assessment of projects within the meaning of the Habitats Directive. On the one hand, Article 1 of the proposal indicates that this is indeed the case. Recital 9 of the preamble also states that the term 'environmental assessments' in the Regulation refers to all relevant environmental assessments under Union law. On the other hand, we saw that the definitions used in the Regulation are aligned with the SEA and EIA Directives. In this context, it is important to note that in 2018 the Court of Justice expressly ruled that the concept of 'project' in the Habitats Directive must be interpreted more broadly than the concept of 'project' in the EIA Directive (compare the Kokkelvisserij judgment, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482, paragraphs 21-29, with the PAS judgment, ECLI:EU:C:2018:882, paragraph 66). If the aim of this amending article is to reverse that line of case law, the consequences will be considerable. We therefore hope that this ambiguity will be clarified in the further course of the legislative process. 

Looking ahead

The Commission writes that the proposals will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. There, they will be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. This means that both the Member States and the Parliament must agree to the proposals before they can enter into force. Given the large differences in processing times, it is currently impossible to predict when the proposals will become applicable law.

Although the proposals may provide some relief for Dutch practice by that time, taken as a whole, they appear to be of limited significance. This should come as no surprise in light of the comments made by Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera when presenting the proposals. She noted: "Today we are presenting a proposal for the targeted simplification of our environmental legislation. (...) The Omnibus does not amend flagship environmental legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Nature Restoration Regulation and the Urban Waste Water Directive." These proposals were therefore not intended to bring about any (radical) substantive changes to the existing European environmental legal framework. 

This may change from next year onwards. In one of its communications accompanying the proposals, the Commission writes the following: "The Commission will subject the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive to a stress test in 2026, taking into account climate change, food security, competitiveness, resilience, evolving case law and the need for legal certainty and other developments, and will present guidelines to facilitate implementation, including with regard to predators." We therefore look forward with great interest to what 2026 will bring in terms of European environmental law and we will make sure to keep you informed.