The route has been revised, but the environmental procedure is not starting from scratch. Near Eisenborn, the adaptation of the 380 kV power line between Aach and Bofferdange will not require a new environmental impact assessment report. The decision of 9 November, published on the environmental portal and reported by RTL, concerns this local change. It is based on the assessment of the original project and remains subject to protective measures.
For local residents, the issues are tangible: where will the cables and pylons run, how much space will the construction site take up, and what precautions will protect the environments crossed by the route? The public file makes it possible to distinguish the announced changes from the conditions that will need to accompany them.
A local rerouting, with visible trade-offs
The file prepared by Oeko-Bureau for Creos examines a southward shift in the Eisenborn area. It aims to connect the line more directly to the Bofferdange substation and move it further away from Eisenborn and Asselscheier.
The plans cover eight pylons, 70 to 85 metres high. The 102-metre mast envisaged near the CR119 is removed from this option. In return, two additional sites in the forest are needed compared with the previous route; the file states that the number of pylons could be reduced further east. This is therefore not simply a matter of removing structures.
Oeko-Bureau places the new line at least 475 metres from the localities and planned residential areas considered in its analysis. This distance is given in the project analysis; it is not a general regulatory threshold. The route also seeks to use the terrain and existing forest tracks to limit the apparent height and facilitate access.
Why a new full report is not required
An environmental impact assessment, or EIA, examines a project’s effects and ways to avoid or reduce them. The original project had already undergone this procedure, with a reasoned conclusion issued on 12 November 2024.
The current modification was submitted to a “screening”, a preliminary check intended to determine whether its effects warrant a new assessment report. File D3-26-0131 concerns the communes of Junglinster and Steinsel. The application was submitted on 21 September 2026; the official record states that the procedure is complete.
The decision is made on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Biodiversity and signed by Marianne Mousel, First Government Adviser. It considers that the adaptation does not significantly alter the conclusions reached in 2024. This administrative decision concerns whether an additional report is needed for the route adaptation.
The absence of a new report does not, therefore, mean that the line has not been examined. It means that the authority considers the check carried out sufficient for this adaptation. The scope matters: the effects of the modification are assessed against a route that has already been studied, not an infrastructure project appearing without any previous file.
Protections that form part of the decision
The ministerial assessment remains conditional. For the Natura 2000 site concerned, it assumes that the mitigation measures set out in the summary assessment will be applied. Precautions must also be taken, in particular during construction, to protect surface water and groundwater. The decision provides that nature protection and water management measures may be detailed in subsequent permits.
The ministry also considers construction disruption to be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project, with a stated duration of four to six weeks per pylon. This duration is not an overall timetable for constructing the line: the project comprises several stages and work sites.
To understand the local consequences, it is therefore necessary to consider not only the permanent structures but also vehicle access routes, working areas and their restoration. A line that is less visible from a village may shift some of the work to other land. That is precisely why it is useful to compare routes together with their execution conditions, rather than stopping at their outline on a map.
An ESG perspective at local level
The file illustrates the three dimensions often grouped under the acronym ESG: environmental, social and governance. Here, they translate into questions that can be checked. Which habitats and resources are affected? Which land uses and neighbours will be affected? Which documents make it possible to understand the decision and the project owner’s commitments?
The environmental dimension concerns habitats, water and work in the forest. The social dimension includes the proximity of homes and temporary disruption. Governance relates in particular to the publication of documents, identification of the authority and the conditions attached to the next stages. Considering these elements together makes the trade-offs visible, without assigning a sustainability rating to the company or its project.
Residents can consult the decision and the screening file under reference D3-26-0131 on the environmental portal. The maps show the location of the option; the text of the decision explains why a new report is not required and which measures this assessment is linked to. These specific documents provide a basis for local discussion.
Sources: RTL, public file D3-26-0131 and its documents, including the Oeko-Bureau report and its annexes (ZIP) and the decision of 9 November.
An electricity pylon in Ukraine. Illustrative and archive photo.
