The Infrastructure Future Act is a potentially significant modernisation initiative for many planning and approval procedures. The current government draft provides for extensive amendments to administrative, planning and environmental law with the aim of substantially accelerating and digitising the implementation of infrastructure projects. Among other objectives, the Act is intended to accelerate the modernisation of ageing bridges, roads, railways and waterways. This article provides an overview of the legislative objectives, key innovations and practical implications for project developers and public authorities.
Political background of the Infrastructure Future Act and its objectives
Germany’s transport infrastructure has for some time been in need of substantial modernisation in many areas. Until now, lengthy planning and approval procedures have delayed essential new construction and expansion projects, often prolonging implementation for several years. The new Infrastructure Future Act (Infrastruktur-Zukunftsgesetz, “InfZuG”) is intended to remove obstacles in planning and approval processes and to shorten the duration of protracted procedures.
To this end, the German government is relying on three guiding principles: acceleration, digitisation and standardisation of procedures. The core mechanism for accelerating procedures is the designation of key infrastructure projects as projects of overriding public interest (“überragendes öffentliches Interesse”). Legal classification as such is intended to influence administrative decision-making and prioritise infrastructure over competing legal interests. In future, projects that support national and collective defence will also be given statutory priority as specially protected interests (“Schutzgütervorrang”). Another key component of the draft is the introduction of standardised, digital planning and approval procedures. Revising planning, construction, environmental and procedural law was a key promise in the coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD.
From a political perspective, the InfZuG is part of a larger legislative package. Additional reforms in environmental law have been outsourced to separate legislative initiatives (such as the planned Natural Area Requirements Act (Naturflächenbedarfsgesetz) and the draft amendment to the Environmental Appeals Act (Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz, “UmwRG”) – Bundestag document 21/4146). The measures also serve to implement the federal-state pact on the acceleration of planning and approval procedures and the efficient use of the new special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality.
Implementation status & timeline for the further legislative process
The first draft bill of the Infrastructure Future Act was published in early November 2025. Following interministerial consultation within the Federal Government, some adjustments were made that have been incorporated into the current government draft (Bundestag document 21/4099). The government draft is currently under consideration in the Bundestag. Parliamentary hearings and committee work are still pending. Further changes are therefore possible.
The entry into force of the InfZuG is currently planned for mid-2026. For planning approval procedures initiated before 31 December 2028, the competent authorities may still apply the previous procedural law on a transitional basis (see section 102b draft Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, “draft VwVfG”)).
Brief overview of the most important changes in the InfZuG
As an omnibus act, the Infrastructure Future Act simultaneously provides for amendments to various laws – including the Administrative Procedure Act, the sector-specific legislation governing railways, federal highways and federal waterways, as well as environmental laws.
Classification as an overriding public interest in transport infrastructure projects
Under existing law, certain projects may already be deemed to be in the overriding public interest, e.g. the expansion of railway lines where plans have been firmly established or an urgent need for this has been formally identified in the statutory requirements plan. With the Infrastructure Future Act, the expansion, new construction and renovation of certain transport infrastructure projects are also classified by law as being in the overriding public interest; for example:
- Section 20(1) draft General Railway Act (Allgemeines Eisenbahngesetz, “draft AEG”) – with regard to the European Transport Corridors;
- Section 3(1), sentence 4 draft Federal Trunk Roads Act (Bundesfernstraßengesetz, “draft FStrG”) – concerning the construction or expansion of rest areas and the replacement of existing bridge structures;
- Section 8(1), sentence 6 draft Federal Waterways Act (Bundeswasserstraßengesetz, “draft WaStrG”) – regarding maintenance measures aimed at the full or partial replacement of system-critical shipping facilities, in particular locks and weirs.
Due to their classification as an overriding public interest, certain infrastructure projects are given particular weight and thus priority in official and judicial considerations, for example in the case of exceptions under nature conservation law. In approval procedures, the balancing of interests is effectively predetermined for these projects. They carry greater weight than other concerns or projects. Giving certain infrastructure projects enhanced legal status will significantly facilitate official decisions and speed up procedures.
Priority as specially protected interests – defence-related projects
For certain defence-related projects, military relevance is intended to give rise to a statutory priority as a specially protected interest (“Schutzgütervorrang”). One example of this is section 18(1), sentence 6 draft WStrG. Under this provision, construction measures relating to some trans-European waterways are of military relevance and therefore to be included as a priority interest in the respective balancing of protected interests. In future, a corresponding provision will also be introduced in section 1(3) draft Federal Trunk Roads Expansion Act (Fernstraßenausbaugesetz, “draft FStrAbG”) for certain construction measures included in the statutory requirements plan for federal trunk roads.
A priority as a specially protected interest is a legal privilege that generally gives particularly important infrastructure projects priority over conflicting protected interests in the event of a balancing of interests (e.g. over water protection areas, the landscape, in forestry, emissions protection, nature conservation, construction or road law). If different protected interests must be balanced against each other, a project benefiting from priority protection will generally prevail. In contrast to the mere classification of a project as being in the overriding public interest (see, for example, section 8(1), sentence 6 draft WaStrG above), the defence-related priority justifies an additional, i.e. double privileging of the project.
Moreover, the classification of an infrastructure project as defence-related can eliminate the need for review processes at EU level, such as obtaining an opinion from the EU Commission for projects that encroach on certain nature reserves. Without the explicit classification of projects as defence-related, an opinion of the EU Commission would often have to be obtained (cf. section 34(4), sentence 2 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, “BNatSchG”)).
Standardised digital planning approval procedures (“digital only”)
The planning approval process for infrastructure projects is extensively modernised and digitalised under the Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, “VwVfG”). All planning and procedural steps, such as the submission of plans, the display of documents, announcements and public participation, will be conducted online and digitally in the future. Paper documents will be dispensed with entirely.
In addition, AI-assisted evaluations and digital models – such as building information Modeling (BIM) – are expected to shorten procedures by up to 30%.
Fewer preliminary review steps due to elimination of the spatial impact assessment
For federal projects relating to federal highways, federal waterways and railway lines, the spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”) will be eliminated in the future (see section 16(2), sentence 3 draft Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz, “draft ROG”)). The spatial impact assessment is an administrative procedure that is carried out prior to the main approval procedure in order to identify spatial conflicts of an infrastructure project. For example, there may be an assessment of whether a new motorway is consistent with the regional spatial development plans and what potential adverse impacts it could have on people and the landscape. Authorities, municipalities and the public are involved in the process. The review ends with a spatial planning assessment, which is taken into account in the subsequent planning process.
The elimination of the spatial impact assessment can be expected to result in faster approval and thus implementation of these transport projects.
These simplifications also apply to energy infrastructure: according to section 16(2), sentence 3 draft ROG, project developers of pumped storage power plants will also be able to expressly waive a spatial impact assessment in the future.
Fewer environmental impact assessments (EIA)
An Environmental Impact Assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, “EIA”) is an official procedure designed to identify and assess the environmental effects of a planned infrastructure project. In contrast to a spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”), an environmental impact assessment identifies environmental protection concerns (e.g. effects on animals, plants, soil, water and climate) so that they can be taken into account in the planning decision. The public and other authorities are involved in the assessment. The outcome is then taken into account in the subsequent authorisation decision in the planning process.
In future, the obligation to carry out an EIA will no longer apply in certain situations:
- The obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment will no longer apply to certain modernisation projects on railway lines (see section 14a(1) draft Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, “draft UPVG”). These include, for example, the installation of overhead lines on railways for up to 60 kilometres of track, the construction of noise barriers as part of noise reduction measures, the construction of crossing tracks and passing tracks or the installation of switches. Due to the elimination of this time-consuming environmental impact assessment, a much faster implementation of the aforementioned projects is to be expected.
- In exceptional cases, the Federal Ministry of Transport may, as an exception, exempt specific transport projects from the EIA requirement in accordance with Annex 1 No. 14 (see section 14e(2) draft UVPG). For example, this could benefit the construction of federal waterways, federal motorways or railway lines with the associated operating facilities or traction power lines. The construction of airfields or the construction of trams in the city may also be exempted from the EIA requirement. However, the prerequisite for this is that the conduct of an environmental impact assessment would have a detrimental effect on the purpose of the project, in particular due to the urgency of the project. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Infrastructure Future Act, this may be the case for projects that are capable of making a significant contribution to mitigating the effects of an imminent natural disaster and substantially strengthening defence readiness.
- In addition, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy may exempt energy infrastructure projects listed in Annex 1 Nos. 1 and 19 from the EIA requirement (section 14e(3) draft UVPG). All kinds of projects in the field of heat generation, mining and energy as well as pipeline systems can benefit from this regulation, such as the construction of power plants, wind turbines or biogas installations. This also benefits the construction and operation of high-voltage overhead lines, gas supply lines or pipeline systems for the transport of chemicals and other substances. However, according to the explanatory memorandum to the government draft, an exemption from the EIA requirement may only apply if such projects are capable of making a significant contribution to coping with a natural disaster or energy supply crisis or mitigating their effects, and are capable of substantially strengthening defence readiness.
- The EIA requirement will also be waived for certain defence-related projects. According to the new section 14e(1) draft UVPG, the authorities are not to carry out an environmental impact assessment for projects that support the production or storage of products for national defence (in particular, armaments, ammunition and explosives). However, the prerequisite for this is that the necessity of the project in question for the operational capability of the Bundeswehr is confirmed by a declaration from the Federal Ministry of Defence and that an environmental impact assessment would have a detrimental effect on national or collective defence objectives.
Fewer approval requirements for rail projects
In future, the construction of conductor rails and switchgear, as well as the expansion of platforms, will no longer require planning approval (section 18(1a) draft AEG).
Deemed notification and deemed consent
Under the current legal framework, the planning approval authority may, after the initiation of the planning approval procedure, issue a provisional order in which preparatory measures or partial measures for the construction of various infrastructure projects are specified; see, for example, section 28(3a) Passenger Transportation Act (Personenbeförderungsgesetz, “PBefG”) for the construction of tram operating facilities. Provisional orders must be made public. In future, when such announcements are made online, a deemed notification will apply after two weeks for many projects that will uniformly set the time limit for third-party appeals in motion and thus create more legal certainty; cf. section 14(2) draft WaStrG for construction projects of the federal waterways, section 28(3a) draft PBefG for tram construction projects and section 17(2) draft FStrG for federal highway construction projects.
To further accelerate planning approval procedures, deemed consent will also apply in certain cases (see, for example, section 14(3), sentence 4 draft WaStrG). If an authority remains silent during the statutory period, its consent is deemed granted by operation of law.
Under current law, the approval of other authorities is often required for large infrastructure projects, as such projects regularly affect matters that fall within the technical competence of federal state authorities. For example, the respective water and nature conservation authorities of the federal states are responsible for water and nature conservation. Statutory approval requirements exist for the purpose of integrating their technical expertise and local knowledge into the decision-making process. In practice, however, these approval requirements lead to significant delays. The introduction of deemed consent prevents projects from being held up solely due to administrative silence or delayed responses.
In some cases, consent requirements are even removed in the government draft to reduce delays caused by necessary approvals (see, for example, section 19(3) draft Water Resources Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz, “draft WHG”)).
Consultation instead of consent
To accelerate approval procedures, the requirement for other authorities’ consent will be waived in certain cases in favour of a simple right to be heard, see section 16(2) draft ROG, section 17b(4) draft FStrG, section 19(3) draft WHG.
Substitute payments instead of compensatory measures in nature conservation law
For infrastructure projects that encroach on nature but are classified as being in the overriding public interest, monetary compensation is recognised as an equal alternative to actual compensatory and replacement measures. This means that developers of infrastructure projects that encroach on nature will be able to dispense with actual compensatory measures to protect nature. Instead, substitute payments may be made to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, which will ensure that the payments are used for ecological enhancement within the affected natural area (see section 15(6a) draft Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, “draft BNatSchG”).
This possibility is also explicitly emphasised in section 15(6a) draft BNatSchG for projects under section 1(1) of the Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz, “TKG”). According to this, developers who intend to relocate or modify telecommunications lines for the development of public telecommunications networks can also make substitute payments instead of implementing actual compensatory measures to protect nature.
No changes to the Environmental Appeals Act
The first draft bill of the Infrastructure Future Act provided that environmental associations would only receive temporary recognition for the purpose of bringing legal remedies under the Environmental Appeals Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz). It also introduced procedural hurdles for the late submission of objections by environmental associations in environmental court proceedings. In addition, the draft bill provided for the removal of the suspensive effect of actions brought by recognised environmental associations.
These issues were deleted from the government draft and outsourced to another legislative package: The new draft amendment to the Environmental Appeals Act (Bundestag document 21/4146) provides, among other things, for the temporary recognition of environmental associations (section 3(4) draft UmwRG) and for the elimination of suspensive effect (section 7(6) draft UmwRG). The Federal Government also intends to advocate at the European level for the introduction of substantive preclusion (Bundestag document 21/4146, p. 16).
Reactions to the InfZuG and criticism
The Federal Government emphasizes the potential cost savings and efficiency gains resulting from digital procedures and the use of digital tools. The Federal Ministry of Transport assumes that efficiency increases of up to 30% are possible.
On the other hand, the government draft has attracted criticism: In particular, critics argue that treating monetary compensation as equivalent to in-kind compensatory measures under nature conservation law weakens effective protection of nature and landscapes. Furthermore, they contend that the blanket designation of numerous transport infrastructure projects as being in the overriding public interest effectively downgrades environmental concerns in legal terms. As a result, interventions in nature may become the rule rather than the exception.
Furthermore, the draft bill of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWE) had envisaged treating monetary compensation and in-kind compensatory measures as equivalent for all construction projects classified as being in the overriding public interest. Thus, this would have also applied to energy infrastructure projects. The possibility of making compensation payments instead of in-kind compensation as a result of a project-related intervention in nature will now only apply to certain infrastructure projects (transport, military, projects from the special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality as well as telecommunications). Energy infrastructure projects are no longer covered by the simplification.
The exclusion of energy projects from the new compensation payment option in nature conservation law was also heavily criticized by the Federal Council (“Bundesrat”) in its statement on the government draft. However, in a counterstatement published in response, the Federal Government has already announced that it will submit a proposal in the parliamentary process to extend the scope to projects in the energy sector that are in the overriding public interest. It remains to be seen what specific plans the Federal Government has for energy infrastructure projects.
Conclusion & implications for practice
The Infrastructure Future Act marks a clear shift towards digital, standardised, and faster planning and approval procedures for infrastructure projects. In particular, the consistent digitalisation of the planning approval procedure and the legal prioritisation of key transport projects will noticeably speed up procedures.
From a practical perspective, the government draft, for now, calls for early preparation for a “digital only” environment, clear deadline management and robust compensation and environmental strategies. Project developers and public authorities that adapt their processes at an early stage are likely to benefit most from the anticipated efficiency gains and minimise transitional risks. In light of the envisaged entry into force in mid-2026, it is important not to wait too long.
Forward
