EABG-Check: the new draft law at a glance

Authors: Mario Laimgruber and Alexander Gimona

The Renewable Energy Expansion Acceleration Act (EABG) is intended to fundamentally change the framework conditions for the expansion of renewable energy plants and the associated grid and storage infrastructure. The draft law was sent out for a six-week review period last Tuesday and aims to streamline approval processes and improve coordination of procedures at an early stage. Here you can also find the explanatory notes on the draft. With this, Austria seeks to implement the central requirements of the RED III (directive 2023/2413).

Key elements of the draft include the designation of special acceleration and infrastructure areas, the introduction of an upstream screening mechanism, and the bundling of all relevant approval steps into a new centralized and streamlined procedure. In this way, the legislator intends to remove obstacles and noticeably accelerate the expansion of generation plants as well as the necessary infrastructure for storing and distributing renewable energy.

But how much simplification does the new EABG actually contain? We took a closer look at the draft.

1. Planning law: acceleration and infrastructure areas & state contribution values

Acceleration areas: In the future, the federal states will be required to designate suitable areas for energy transition projects. Within these areas, which are particularly suitable for the construction of such projects and where low environmental impacts are to be expected, procedural simplifications apply. A strategic environmental assessment pursuant to the SEA directive is required and is also the responsibility of the federal states.
Infrastructure areas: The grid-specific counterpart to acceleration areas.
Generation reference values: Annex 3 in conjunction with sections 52 and 53 EABG provides generation reference values for each federal state. These relate to the annually generated amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, with existing plant capacities being credited. The federal states must report regularly on ongoing progress. However, no specific sanction regime is provided for non-compliance with these reference values [in section 52(2) EABG the text merely states: “If the joint objective or the target values of individual federal states are not achieved, the federal government shall take measures to ensure the mandatory fulfillment of the generation reference values.”; the explanatory notes add only – and without much clarity: “These provisions are intended to ensure the achievement of the objectives of section 4 EAG.”].

2. Procedural architecture: one-stop shop, new types of procedures, procedural structuring, and central electronic publication platform

EABG approval procedure: For relevant projects not subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), a new EABG approval procedure will apply in the future. A distinction is made between the ordinary procedure (section 26), the simplified procedure (section 27), the notification procedure (section 28), and projects exempt from approval (section 14).
Consolidation effect [section 6(1) EABG]: All relevant federal and state administrative regulations are to be applied jointly in a consolidated procedure.
Competence: Generally, the provincial governor [section 6(2) EABG] is the competent authority, with the possibility of delegation to district administrative authorities.
Comprehensive regulation of preliminary work for all projects (section 8 EABG).
Central contact point (section 15 EABG): The competent authority must set up a central contact point, which is also required to draw up a procedural manual.
Uniform central electronic publication platform (section 7 EABG).
Service by publication (section 23 EABG): Documents may, and decisions must, be served by the authority through public notice (edict).
Integration of the already proven instrument from the EIA regime for possible procedural structuring, including the setting of binding deadlines (section 20 EABG).
The so-called energy transition participation (section 55 EABG) allows municipalities, for the first time, to receive legally secured financial contributions from project developers of new PV, wind power, or transmission line facilities based on agreements. Such agreements may cover, for example, the designation and use of land or the provision of municipal land. This is intended to enable municipalities to participate directly in the energy transition and strengthen their budgets.
Initial screening instead of full assessment (section 10 EABG): Within the acceleration and infrastructure areas (for which corridor reservations are to be issued), the screening procedure can replace the conduct of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), a nature impact assessment, and the consideration of species protection measures. The prerequisite is that the project is not expected to have significant unforeseen adverse environmental effects. The assessment is to be limited in terms of depth and scope to a preliminary review. Conditions, mitigation, and compensation measures, up to species protection compensation payments [section 10 (4, 8f) EABG], are possible. The screening constitutes a binding preliminary assessment with deadlines of 30 or 45 working days [section 10(1) EABG]. The authority may only carry out additional investigations in sensitive areas.
Early use of the permit [section 32(5) EABG]: Based on the well-known model of the Trade Regulation Act 1994 (GewO 1994), an EABG project, or parts of it, may generally be constructed and operated before it becomes legally binding, provided that the prescribed conditions are met. This right may be excluded if, due to the particular circumstances of the individual case, there is a danger to life or health, or a disproportionate disadvantage to the environment is expected.

3. Cornerstones of substantive law: public interest & species protection

Overriding public interest [section 24(2) EABG]

For all “energy transition projects” (section 5 no. 30 EABG; this particularly includes grid infrastructure), the draft law establishes a legal presumption of overriding public interest. This pre-structures the weighing of interests in favor of such projects in the approval process: They are considered high-priority by default and simultaneously make a significant contribution to public health and safety. In addition, it is stipulated that for energy transition projects constructed on land designated for this purpose, certain protected assets, particularly the landscape and townscape, are not to be taken into account at all in the weighing of interests.

Species protection [section 24(5) EABG]

If mitigation measures integral to the project or required by the authority comply with the state of the art, the killing or disturbance of protected species is not considered “intentional.”

4. Initial reactions from the industry

Grid operators welcome the recognition of the overriding public interest and the possibility of faster approvals, but emphasize the high resource requirements.
The renewable energy industry praises the new acceleration areas and the one-stop-shop principle, but criticizes the non-binding nature of the state requirements.
Some industry associations draw a rather sobering conclusion – in their view, the draft does not go far enough. Their focus is on what they see as key weaknesses in the draft law.

5. Specific implications for projects – three brief practical tips

The draft has several specific implications for project applicants.

First, the location strategy will become even more important: Land in potential acceleration areas should be secured as early as possible. It is also advisable to actively accompany the strategic environmental assessment process and work towards a solid data foundation, as this will be crucial for later screening and approval.

Second, the new procedural design requires careful preparation. Project documents must be prepared in such a way that they meet the screening requirements. This includes, in particular, planning possible mitigation and compensation measures in advance. The availability of administrative and expert resources must also be taken into account. Attention should also be paid to potential conflicts of interest. For example, a non-official expert cannot be appointed if they have worked for the project applicant in the past two years (section 19 EABG).

Third, the role of the municipal level will become more prominent. Coordination with municipalities regarding land use planning, transparent information formats, and participation models can significantly increase acceptance. Those who make use of this level at an early stage reduce the risk of objections and increase the chances of a smooth and rapid process.

6. Open issues for the review phase

Whether the draft will actually lead to a significant acceleration of the process largely depends on how it is further shaped during the legislative process. The target architecture is viewed as particularly critical: The generation reference values for the federal states, which are included in the annex, are currently non-binding and, in some cases, set so low that they fall short of existing expansion targets. This raises the question of whether the targets will be effective enough without binding sanctions. The unspecified responsibility for designating acceleration areas at the state level is also risky and will need to be questioned.

Another open issue is the quality of the screening process. The proposed preliminary assessment lacks clear criteria for measuring the depth of the review.

Lastly, the success of the EABG depends on the resources available. Both at the planning and approval levels, authorities must be adequately staffed and equipped in terms of quality. Without these prerequisites, the ambitious procedural architecture is in danger of stalling.

Conclusion

The current draft of the EABG contains important and fundamentally sensible levers: acceleration and infrastructure areas and associated “tiering” in the approval process, one-stop shop, procedural structuring, presumption of public interest, etc. It shifts the focus of implementation to early planning and project phases and has the potential to make procedures shorter and more effective.

However, for the law to become a true accelerator, further refinements are needed (e.g., with regard to binding state requirements, clear screening standards, and sufficient resources for authorities). From a legislative perspective, the detailed design of some provisions should be reconsidered and (at the very least) explained in more detail in the explanatory notes (especially regarding the suspensive effect of appeals against an approval decision; for more details, see the article by Laimgruber/Ortner/Gaugg, RED III as an Opportunity for Austria Using the Example of the Electricity Transmission Grid, RdU Special Issue RED III, scheduled for publication by the publisher in October 2025).

The review period for the current EABG draft runs until October 21st, 2025. It remains to be seen what changes the parliamentary process will bring. We will keep you up to date and support you at all times in the successful implementation of your project, whether under the old or new approval regimes.

Despite any prophecies of doom, we would like to conclude our overview with a quote from Wilhelm von Humboldt, which, in our opinion, could just as well apply to the efforts to further develop Austrian project approval procedures – as represented by the current EABG draft:

“I thought it better to accomplish something than to attempt nothing because one cannot accomplish everything.”

Wilhelm von Humboldt

Disclaimer

This article is for general information only and does not replace legal advice. Haslinger / Nagele Rechtsanwälte GmbH assumes no liability for the content and correctness of this article.