IN Brief:
- Eurelectric has responded to the SEAC draft opinion on EU PFAS restrictions.
- The organisation supports environmental protection but warns against disruption to critical power equipment.
- Switchgear, substations, and long-life electrical assets are central to the sector’s transition concerns.
Eurelectric has warned that proposed EU restrictions on PFAS must avoid disrupting the availability of critical electrical equipment used in power generation, transmission, and distribution networks.
The organisation has responded to the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis draft opinion on restricting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, supporting tighter controls on environmental and health risks while calling for use-specific derogations and evidence-based transition periods for essential power-sector applications.
PFAS are used across a wide range of industrial products because of their chemical, thermal, and electrical properties. In the power sector, they can be present in professional, long-life equipment and components where downstream users do not always have full material transparency across complex international supply chains.
A blanket restriction could create difficulties where alternatives are not fully available, technically qualified, or deployable at the scale required. Power-sector equipment must meet safety, reliability, insulation, and operational standards, with any substitution requiring testing, requalification, workforce training, specification updates, and changes to maintenance procedures.
Electrical switchgear is one of the most sensitive areas of the debate. The sector is already moving away from SF6 under F-gas rules because of the gas’s high global warming potential. Some alternative technologies and insulating gas mixtures may intersect with PFAS regulation, creating the risk that one environmental rule could complicate compliance with another.
High-voltage equipment cannot be replaced on the same basis as short-life industrial consumables. Switchgear and substation assets are expected to operate for decades under demanding reliability, insulation, safety, and fault-interruption requirements. Introducing an alternative product requires type testing, grid-code compatibility, protection coordination, installation procedures, maintenance training, safety documentation, and confidence that more than one supplier can support demand.
European electricity networks are also being expanded and reinforced to connect renewables, storage, electric vehicles, heat pumps, data centres, and industrial electrification. Network operators are already dealing with long lead times for transformers, switchgear, cables, conductors, control equipment, and specialist installation capacity. Additional procurement uncertainty would add strain to reinforcement and renewal programmes already competing for equipment and skilled labour.
The scale of the investment requirement is visible in Austria faces €68bn grid investment requirement, where national network spending has been linked to renewable integration, electrification, and grid expansion. Similar pressures extend across Europe as utilities prepare for higher demand, more distributed generation, and more variable flows across transmission and distribution systems.
The PFAS debate shows how environmental regulation, equipment standards, and infrastructure delivery are increasingly intertwined. Reducing persistent chemical use is a legitimate policy objective, but substitution in critical power infrastructure requires proven technical performance. A distribution network cannot accept higher failure rates, limited spare availability, or uncertain maintenance procedures in assets that underpin system security.
The issue also extends to existing substations and networks, where equipment installed across several decades remains in service. Replacement programmes are shaped by asset age, condition, fault history, network criticality, and outage availability. If new equipment choices become constrained before alternatives are widely available, reinforcement and renewal schemes could face delays at the same time as electrification raises demand for network capacity.
European policy is therefore being asked to balance chemical reduction with clean electrification. Those objectives can support each other, but only if transition periods, derogations, and supply-chain evidence reflect the practical realities of long-life power assets. The final regulatory design will be judged by whether it reduces environmental risk while preserving equipment availability for critical grid infrastructure.