How and why the broad coalition has run aground on alternative energy

Among those who spoke at Il Foglio’s meeting in Florence was the leader of the Greens, Bonelli, who, as well as announcing that an AVS candidate would stand in the primaries, acknowledged that there is a problem with renewable energy in regions governed by the centre-left.

This is a serious issue. Firstly, in Italy, the actual duration of administrative procedures for the authorisation of energy-generating facilities is significantly longer than the timeframes laid down by law. Under Legislative Decree No. 190/2024, the time limits are just 30 days for the simplified authorisation procedure, no fewer than 90 days for the single authorisation, and up to 420 days in the most complex cases, where an environmental impact assessment is required.

The reality on the ground is very different, as data from the sector’s leading monitoring organisations (including Legambiente) show that the actual duration of the procedures exceeds 1,700 days for wind farms and 1,100 days for solar power plants. There are around 4,000 projects on hold, and the success rate for applications is extremely low: around 8 per cent for wind power and 16 per cent for solar power. It is therefore not surprising that there has been a sharp decline (well over 50 per cent for solar power) in new applications for authorisation.

Furthermore, as noted by Bonelli, the greatest delays are concentrated not only in Sicily but also in certain regions governed by AVS’s allies, namely the PD and the Five Star Movement. Sardinia has imposed a moratorium in direct contravention of national decarbonisation directives and targets, which was declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court a few months ago; however, there are dozens of appeals pending before the administrative courts due to local resistance. In Tuscany and Puglia, significant delays have accumulated, due in part to environmental impact assessments stalled in Rome, and in part to the cultural heritage authorities and regional bureaucracies, which fail to take into account the existence of an ‘overriding public interest’ as defined by the 2024 decree.

The significant delays and failures of numerous projects pose further problems for Italy, given the country’s traditional scarcity of hydrocarbons and its decision to phase out nuclear power, and call the government to account, even though there has recently been an increase in the number of opinions issued by the EIA Commission. The divide between the regions – which cannot be attributed to the usual North-South dichotomy – represents one of the most complex tests for a coalition seeking to govern the country. It will be interesting to see whether the measures proposed by the parties that describe themselves as progressive – such as working groups with academics and experts and simplification plans – will provide adequate solutions. In the meantime, it is clear that divisions within the coalition do not concern only the defence of Ukraine: they are broader, indicating a divergence on the relationship between landscape conservation and environmental protection, and therefore concern the very concept of sustainable development – which we hope no one now thinks of reducing to ‘happy degrowth’.