The European Commission has unveiled a staggering €600 billion plan to centralize control over the continent’s energy grid—a project marketed as green progress, but seen by critics as yet another power grab at the expense of national sovereignty.
The scale is colossal: we are talking about an unprecedented investment aimed at interconnecting national grids, overhauling infrastructure, and ensuring the transition toward a green economy over the next decade—a key objective of the von der Leyen Commission in both its previous and current terms.
The stated goal is ambitious. According to the Commission itself, this investment will be used to strengthen cross-border interconnections, expand transmission and storage capacity, and facilitate the massive integration of renewable energy, which is unreliable and hard to store. The plan, which Brussels claims it will outline by 2026 at the latest, aims to create a deeply integrated “meshed electricity network” that would enable a single energy market, ultimately placing energy oversight under EU control.
Brussels’ justification: Green transition and energy security
The official explanation hinges on two major arguments: on the one hand, the need to advance the economy’s decarbonization to meet Europe’s climate commitments; on the other, the urgency of strengthening energy security after the crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine and the subsequent break with traditional fossil fuel suppliers.
The European Commission and its parliamentary partners from the European People’s Party(EPP) are promoting the idea that “being green is being patriotic” as a strategy to counter conservative criticisms of the lack of competitiveness stemming from limited energy accessibility for businesses and citizens. However, critics say this is little more than sloganeering.
Brussels defends itself by assuring that, although high, the investment will pay off in the medium term. According to ENTSO-e (the European association of electricity network operators), annual savings of over €38 billion could be achieved if cross-border infrastructures are properly developed. This, combined with the promise to reduce external dependency and improve the system’s resilience, is presented as an unavoidable step to prevent new episodes of energy vulnerability.
That is the narrative. The reality is far less reassuring. Renewable technology cannot be stored effectively, and dependency on its supply causes serious headaches.
Because of this, legitimate doubts and suspicions arise. The recent energy crisis in Spain, marked by a blackout that partially paralyzed the country for several hours, has served as a catalyst to accelerate the EU’s pro-integration energy rhetoric. Both MEPs and technical officials have pointed out that greater interconnection with France would have mitigated the effects of the collapse, reinforcing the message that the “solution” lies in handing over more competences to Brussels.
It is striking that this episode, already being used to justify the urgency of the European energy project, coincides with the political timeline. For months, the Commission has been warning about the “insufficiency” of the Iberian network and the need to strengthen interconnections. The question is inevitable: is this a real technical flaw—or just another manufactured justification to advance Brussels’ federalization agenda?
The discourse around energy is not just technical—it is profoundly political. The creation of a “genuine Energy Union,” as demanded by the Commission, is one of the key pillars to consolidate an increasingly centralized European Union that shows less and less respect for the autonomy of its Member States. Electricity isn’t just infrastructure—it’s influence. Subordinating its management to Brussels represents one more step toward building a European superstate that many citizens reject, deeply worried about losing their national identity and democratic control over vital sectors.
WATCH: Jen Psaki Struggles to Defend the Obvious Coverup of Biden’s Deteriorated Mental State