• Royal Decree-Law 7/2026 sets out general guidelines, but does not translate them into operational criteria.

  • The debate is not whether there should be public intervention, but how it is articulated with clarity, predictability and consistency with industrial policy.

  • The RDL does not yet clarify which criteria will be applied to consider a project strategic and, therefore, grant it priority access to the grid. The decision on which projects deserve this designation will lie with the Government’s Delegated Commission for Economic Affairs, following a proposal from a newly created Strategic Investment Committee.

  • A framework that establishes that certain projects will have priority, but does not specify the criteria to reach that condition, does not resolve uncertainty: it simply shifts it to the stage of applying for strategic designation.

April 10, 2026.

In a context of growing geopolitical tension and pressure on energy markets, it is logical for governments to activate extraordinary mechanisms to guarantee supply and mitigate economic impact. Royal Decree-Law 7/2026, the Comprehensive Response Plan to the Middle East crisis, approved on March 20, responds to that need: anticipating risks, setting priorities and equipping the system with instruments in a context of uncertainty.

However, once regulatory urgency gives way to implementation, a fundamental question emerges that goes beyond the short term: how will decisions be made? In a field as critical as access and connection to the electricity grid—where scarcity is no longer a hypothesis but a structural reality—the definition of priorities ceases to be a technical matter and becomes a strategic one.

Because the debate is not whether public intervention should exist (in a context of limited capacity, it seems inevitable), but how that intervention is designed. And, above all, with what degree of clarity, predictability and consistency with industrial policy objectives.

What the decree does resolve: a hierarchy of priorities

The RDL establishes three categories of consumption considered “high priority” for grid access. First, residential real estate developments and essential services (hospitals, national security facilities, public transport, water infrastructure, etc.). Second, new industrial demand declared Strategic Investment Projects. Third, expansions of existing facilities that already have a valid access contract and are effectively using the grid, with a cap of up to three times the average contracted capacity over the past two years, provided they do not change their core economic activity according to the CNAE classification.

The decree goes even further: when two high-priority requests compete for the same node, it establishes an internal ranking. Essential services and housing come first. Strategic industrial projects follow. Expansions of existing industry come third.

This is a framework with more concreteness than is often acknowledged in public debate. It follows a logic that can be considered reasonable: it first protects basic needs, then new strategic industry, and finally the consolidation of existing industrial activity.

But the core issue remains unresolved

However, the real dilemma in the industrial sphere lies in the intermediate category: Strategic Investment Projects. This is where both the promise and the uncertainty of the decree reside. The decision on which projects qualify for this designation will rest with the Government’s Delegated Commission for Economic Affairs, based on a proposal from the newly created Strategic Investment Committee. The criteria and procedure for this designation are explicitly deferred to subsequent regulatory development.

The decree sets out general orientations (reindustrialization, ecological and digital transition, supply chain resilience, creation of quality employment), but does not translate them into operational criteria. Which type of industry will be prioritized? The most energy-intensive? The one generating the most direct employment? The one anchoring domestic value chains? Will certain sectors prevail over others? Or those with lower fossil dependency? The text does not say.

Moreover, there are dimensions the decree does not address at all: there is no explicit territorial criterion for prioritizing industrial access. The real map of grid saturation—which shows levels above 90% in regions such as Andalusia or Madrid, but still significant margins in others—is not incorporated as a decision variable. Nor is job creation or retention defined as a concrete access criterion beyond its mention as a general objective.

Uncertainty that paralyses before damage occurs

At Foro Industria y Energía, we have long pointed out that regulatory uncertainty is one of the main inhibitors of industrial investment. It is not the only factor, but it is particularly harmful because it acts before any real damage occurs: it paralyses location decisions, freezes electrification plans and pushes industrial operators to defer commitments that, in the context of the energy transition, cannot be postponed indefinitely.

A framework that establishes that certain projects will have priority, but does not specify the criteria to reach that condition, does not resolve uncertainty: it simply shifts it to the stage of applying for strategic designation. Industry needs to know what to expect—and to know it with sufficient advance to plan.

The decree has form. It lacks substance

RDL 7/2026 opens a pathway to prioritizing grid access, creates categories, establishes a hierarchy and sets the mechanism in motion. These are real steps. But the content that makes this mechanism work—defining what constitutes a strategic project, under which criteria it is assessed, and with what territorial or sectoral weighting—does not yet exist. And until it does, the “high priority” industrial category has form, but not substance.

Will the criteria be based on job creation, emissions reduction, geographic location or technological innovation? The core debate is not about opposing the measure, but about preventing the selection of priorities from becoming an opaque process. Regulatory development must advance with the same urgency as the decree itself, before criteria are effectively set without the input of those who best understand the real needs of industry. Defining clear rules is as urgent as adopting measures, before uncertainty generates irreversible distortions. The public administration will be the first to benefit from it.