A newly presented national energy analysis known as the Montenegro Energy Growth and Acceleration (MEGA) study has sparked strong debate over its role in shaping Montenegro’s future energy policy. The report was developed by international and domestic partners to identify potential sites for renewable energy development, but critics argue it should not form the basis of official strategy without more scrutiny.
The MEGA study, undertaken by The Nature Conservancy and the local environmental NGO Eko Tim in partnership with Montenegro’s Ministry of Energy and Mining, the national investment agency, and with data provided by the Montenegrin Electricity Transmission System (CGES), was formally presented to the public this week. It is designed to highlight areas with high potential for solar and wind power where environmental and social conflict may be lower as Montenegro seeks to accelerate its transition to cleaner energy.
However, the Civic Initiative “Save Brezna,” a grassroots group representing residents of a rural village in northern Montenegro, has sharply criticised the study. They argue that in its current form the document has serious methodological, factual and procedural flaws and should not be used as a foundation for national energy planning, spatial development decisions, or the designation of so-called Renewable Acceleration Areas. According to the initiative, the study lacks basic transparency about authorship, advisory input, and expert validation, raising doubts about its credibility as an impartial analysis.
At the centre of the controversy is a planned major energy hub and 400 kilovolt substation in the village of Brezna, which local residents say would have significant social, environmental and property impacts. Members of the initiative say the MEGA study appears to normalise and legitimise pre-selected energy projects, including the disputed hub, by labelling them as low conflict and in the public interest even though affected communities disagree. They also raise concerns about potential conflict of interest because key data came from CGES and the stated lead author previously held roles with national energy companies.
Critics further contend that if the study were applied as a policy tool without due diligence, it could undermine local livelihoods and rural economies, potentially displacing residents and devaluing land and traditional activities such as agriculture and small-scale tourism. The initiative says it will use all legally available domestic and international channels to challenge decisions based on the MEGA document if necessary.
In response to these criticisms, the NGO Eko Tim has rejected claims that the MEGA study favours specific infrastructure projects or locations. The organisation emphasises that the analysis is founded on an internationally recognised “smart siting” methodology developed to balance multiple environmental, social and economic factors when identifying suitable areas for renewable energy development. It also states that the study used officially approved grid plans, and that details about authors, advisory boards and methodology are documented and available.
Supporters of the study argue that such analytical tools are essential for strategic planning in Montenegro’s energy transition, particularly given the country’s commitments to expand renewable generation and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Proponents say mapping low-conflict areas can help guide investment toward locations where development is feasible and less likely to provoke community opposition.
The debate over the MEGA study highlights broader tensions in Montenegro’s energy policy: balancing the need for rapid renewable expansion, compliance with environmental protections and local consent. How national authorities ultimately position the study within formal policy — and whether additional reviews or revisions are demanded — will be closely watched by communities, civil society groups and energy planners alike.
