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 facilitate the faster modernisation of ageing bridges, roads, railways and waterways. This article provides an overview of the legislative objectives, key innovations and the 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 required substantial modernization in many areas. Until now, lengthy planning and approval procedures have delayed necessary new construction and expansion projects, often extending implementation over several years. The new Infrastructure Future Act (“Infrastruktur-Zukunftsgesetz”; “InfZuG”) is intended to remove the brakes on planning and approval processes and shorten the duration of lengthy procedures.
To this end, the German government is relying on three guiding principles: Acceleration, digitisation and standardisation of procedures. The core instrument 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 prioritizes infrastructure over competing legal interests. In the future, projects that serve national and collective defence will likewise benefit from a statutory priority of specially protected interests (“Schutzgütervorrang”). Another key component of the draft is the introduction of standardised, digital planning and approval procedures. The revision of planning, construction, environmental and procedural law was a central promise in the coalition agreement of 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”) – BT-Drs. 21/4146). Last but not least, the measures 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.
Status of implementation & timeline for the further legislative process
The first draft bill for the Infrastructure Future Act was published in early November 2025. Following interministerial coordination within the Federal Government, some adjustments were made that have been incorporated into the current government draft (BT-Drs. 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 of the draft of the Administrative Procedure Act (“Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz”; “VwVfG-E”)).
Brief overview of the most important reforms 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 qualify as being in the overriding public interest (“überragendes öffentliches Interesse”), e.g. for the expansion of railway lines, if they have been firmly planned or if an urgent need for it has been formally established 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) of the draft General Railway Act (“Allgemeines Eisenbahngesetz”; “AEG-E”) – with regard to the European Transport Corridors;
- Section 3(1) sentence 4 of the draft Federal Highway Act (“Bundesfernstraßengesetz”; “FStrG-E”) – concerning the construction or expansion of rest areas and the replacement of existing bridge structures;
- Section 8(1) sentence 6 of the draft Federal Waterways Act (“Bundeswasserstraßengesetz”; “WaStrG-E”) – regarding maintenance measures aimed at the full or partial replacement of system-critical shipping facilities, in particular locks and weirs.
Due to the classification as an overriding public interest, certain infrastructure projects are given particular weight and thus priority in official and judicial considerations, for example when exceptions under nature conservation law are considered. In approval procedures, the balancing decision for these projects is predetermined. They carry greater weight over other concerns or projects. The legal upgrading of certain infrastructure projects will make official decisions much easier and speed up procedures.
Priority of 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 is section 18(1) sentence 6 WStrG-E. Under this provision, construction measures concerning 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) of the draft Federal Highway Expansion Act (“Fernstraßenausbaugesetz”; “FStrAbG-E”) for certain construction measures included in the statutory requirements plan for federal highways.
A priority of specially protected interests is a legal privilege that generally gives particularly important infrastructure projects priority over conflicting protected interests in the event of a balancing decision (e.g. over water protection areas, the landscape, in forestry, immission control, nature conservation, building or road law). If different protected interests have to be balanced against each other, a project with priority of specially protected interests usually prevails. In contrast to the mere classification of a project as being in the overriding public interest (see e.g. section 8(1) sentence 6 WaStrG-E), the defence-related priority justifies an additional, i.e. double privilege of the project.
Last but not least, the classification of an infrastructure project as defence-relevant 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 relevant to defence, 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”)).
Uniform digital planning approval procedures (“digital only”)
The planning approval process for infrastructure projects is comprehensively modernised and shifted to digital formats 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 are completely omitted.
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 procedures due to omission of the spatial impact assessment
For federal projects relating to federal highways, federal waterways and railways, the spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”) will be omitted in the future (see section 16(2) sentence 3 of the draft Spatial Planning Act (“Raumordnungsgesetz”; “ROG-E”)). The spatial impact assessment is an administrative procedure prior to the main approval procedure in order to identify spatial conflicts of an infrastructure project. For example, it is assessed whether a new motorway is consistent with the regional spatial development plans and what potential adverse impacts it may 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 deletion of the spatial impact assessment can be expected to result in faster approval and thus implementation of these transport projects.
These facilitations also affect the energy infrastructure: according to section 16(2) sentence 3 ROG-E, project developers of pumped storage power plants may also expressly waive a spatial impact assessment in the future.
Fewer environmental impact assessments (EIA)
The Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”; “Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung”) is an official procedure designed to identify and assess the environmental effects of a planned infrastructure project. In contrast to the spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”), the environmental impact assessment focuses on affected environmental concerns (e.g. effects on animals, plants, soil, water and climate) in order to integrate them into the planning decision. The public and other authorities are involved in the audit. The result will be taken into account in the subsequent approval decision.
In future, the obligation to carry out an EIA will no longer apply in certain situations:
- For certain modernisation projects on railway lines, the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment will no longer apply (see section 14a(1) of the draft of the German Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter “EIA Act”). 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 omission 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 determine an exemption from the EIA obligation for specific transport projects in accordance with Annex 1 No. 14 (see section 14e(2) of the draft EIA Act). For example, the construction of federal waterways, federal motorways or railways with the associated operating facilities or traction power lines can benefit from this. Likewise, the construction of airfields or the construction of trams in the city can be exempted from the EIA requirement. However, the prerequisite is that the conducting of an environmental impact assessment would have a detrimental effect on the purpose of the project, in particular because of the urgency of the project. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Infrastructure Future Act, such a case can exist in urgent cases, e.g. if projects are suitable to make a relevant contribution to mitigating the effects of an imminent natural disaster and significantly strengthening the readiness for defence.
- 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) of the draft EIA Act). 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 favours 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 of the government draft, an exemption from the EIA obligation can only exist for such projects if they are suitable to make a relevant contribution to coping with a natural disaster or energy supply crisis or mitigating its effects, and are suitable to enhance defence readiness.
- The EIA obligation will also be waived for certain defence-related projects. According to the new section 14e(1) of the draft UVPG, the authorities are not to carry out an environmental impact assessment on projects that serve the production or storage of products for national defence (in particular armaments, ammunition and explosives). However, the prerequisite is that the necessity of the project in question for the operational capability of the Bundeswehr is confirmed by a declaration by 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
Going forward, the construction of conductor rails, switchgear and the expansion of platforms will no longer require planning approval (section 18(1a) AEG-E).
Legal Fictions of notification and 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) PBefG for the construction of tram operating facilities. Provisional orders must be made public. In the future, when such announcements are made online, a notification fiction will apply after two weeks for many projects, which will set the time limit for third-party appeals in motion uniformly and thus create more legal certainty; cf. section 14(2) WaStrG-E for construction projects of the federal waterways, section 28(3a) of the draft Passenger Transport Act (“Personenbeförderungsgesetz”; “PBefG-E”) for tram construction projects and section 17(2) FStrG-E for construction projects of federal highways.
To further accelerate planning approval procedures, deemed consent will also apply in certain cases (see e.g. section 14(3) sentence 4 WaStrG-E). If an authority remains silent during the statutory period, its consent is deemed granted by the 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 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 to integrate 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 by official silence or delayed statements.
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) of the draft Water Resources Act (“Wasserhaushaltsgesetz”; “WHG-E”)).
Hearings instead of mandatory 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) ROG-E, section 17b(4) FStrG-E, section 19(3) WHG-E.
Compensation payments instead of compensatory measures in nature conservation law
For infrastructure projects that affect 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 nature-encroaching infrastructure projects will be able to dispense with actual compensatory measures to protect nature. Compensation payments to the Federal Ministry for the Environment can replace them and the Ministry ensures that the payments are used for the ecological enhancement of the affected natural area (see section 15(6a) BNatSchG-E).
This possibility is also explicitly emphasised in section 15(6a) BNatSchG-E 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 compensation payments instead of implementing physical compensatory measures to protect nature.
No changes to the Environmental Appeals Act
The draft bill of the Infrastructure Future Act envisaged that environmental associations would only receive temporary recognition for the purpose of bringing actions under the Environmental Appeals Act (“Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz”). It also proposed the introduction of procedural restrictions on the late submission of objections by environmental associations in environmental litigation. In addition, the draft provided for the removal of the suspensive effect of actions brought by recognised environmental associations.
These topics were deleted from the government draft and outsourced to another legislative package: The new draft amendment to the Environmental Appeals Act (BT-Drs. 21/4146) provides, among other things, for the introduction of a temporary recognition for environmental associations (section 3(4) UmwRG-E) and for the abolition of the suspensive effect (section 7(6) UmwRG-E). The Federal Government also wants to work towards the introduction of a substantive preclusion at European level (BT-Drs. 21/4146, p. 16).
Reactions to the InfZuG and criticism
The German 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 also provokes criticism: In particular, they argue that treating monetary compensation as equivalent to in-kind compensatory measures under nature conservation law undermines effective protection of nature and landscapes. Furthermore, critics contend that the blanket designation of numerous transport infrastructure projects as being in the overriding public interest legally downgrades environmental concerns. As a result, interventions in nature may become the rule rather than the exception.
Furthermore, an earlier draft 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, which would also have covered energy infrastructure projects. This would therefore also have applied to energy infrastructure projects. The possibility of making compensation payments instead of compensation in kind 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 significant shift towards digital, uniform and faster planning and approval procedures for infrastructure projects. In particular, the comprehensive 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 “digital only”, clear deadline management and resilient compensation and environmental compliance 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
