As U.S. regulators confront the intersection of energy transition, emerging technology governance and large-scale infrastructure modernization, a cautionary example is emerging from Europe. The European Union’s (EU) most ambitious renewable energy reform illustrates a lesson that should resonate strongly in the United States: When regulatory disputes grow more complex, procedural acceleration alone is not enough. What is required is intentional dispute system design. 

Europe’s Experience—and Why It Matters to U.S. Readers

In October 2023, the EU adopted the Revised Renewable Energy Directive (commonly known as RED III). For U.S. readers, a brief explanation is helpful. An EU directive is not self-executing federal law; instead, it establishes binding goals that each EU country must implement through its own national legislation, similar in effect—though not in structure—to federal mandates that require state-level implementation.

RED III set an ambitious objective: 42.5% renewable energy consumption by 2030, coupled with streamlined permitting timelines for renewable projects. Recognizing that permitting disputes are a major source of delay, the directive expressly authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in permitting processes.

The implementation record, however, has been striking. Nearly two years later, Denmark is the only EU country to have fully implemented RED III into national law. The European Commission—the EU’s enforcement authority—has initiated legal proceedings against the remaining 26 member states for failure to implement the directive on time.

For U.S. regulators, the relevance is immediate. The United States faces similar pressures: ambitious clean-energy targets, increasingly complex permitting regimes and intense stakeholder conflict around siting, transmission, environmental impact and community concerns. Europe’s experience shows that statutory authorization alone does not guarantee effective dispute resolution.

The Core Implementation Gap: Speed Without Dialogue

Where EU countries have implemented dispute mechanisms under RED III, they have largely defaulted to administrative or quasi-judicial processes—fast-track tribunals focused on issuing decisions. What is largely absent is early-stage, facilitative engagement: mediation, structured stakeholder dialogue and technical problem-solving before disputes harden into adversarial positions.

This mirrors a risk familiar to U.S. agencies. When regulatory systems emphasize deadlines and approvals without embedding collaborative processes, disputes tend to surface later—often in federal court—when options are narrower, costs are higher and public trust has eroded.

The U.S. Has a Structural Advantage—If It Uses It

The United States is not starting from scratch. For decades, federal law has explicitly encouraged ADR in regulatory contexts. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act promote mediation, facilitation and consensus-building across federal agencies.

In practice, this framework is well developed:

• The Environmental Protection Agency routinely uses mediation and facilitation in enforcement, Superfund cleanups and permitting disputes.
• The Department of Energy maintains a dedicated ADR office supporting conflict resolution across its programs.
• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) offers structured dispute resolution services that have helped resolve landowner, environmental and infrastructure conflicts involving pipelines and transmission projects—often avoiding protracted litigation.

These tools reflect a pragmatic understanding familiar to U.S. practitioners: Courts are essential, but they are not always the right first forum for resolving technically complex, multiparty regulatory disputes.

Emerging Technology Governance: A Familiar Pattern

This same logic is beginning to appear in emerging regulatory areas. Texas’ recently enacted Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) is illustrative. While the statute does not mandate mediation, it incorporates notice-and-cure provisions and civil investigative demand (CID) processes that effectively create space for dialogue before litigation.

For U.S. lawyers and regulators, this structure is familiar. Notice-and-cure mechanisms, negotiated compliance and consent agreements have long been staples of regulatory enforcement. TRAIGA extends that model into AI governance, where disputes over scope, technical feasibility, confidentiality and compliance burdens are likely to arise long before any court filing.

A Comparative Lesson From Italy—Translated for U.S. Practice

Italy offers a particularly instructive example of dispute system design. Since 2010, Italy has operated a civil mediation framework based on what can be described—using U.S. terms—as a mandatory initial conference with an easy opt-out.

Before filing suit in certain categories of civil disputes, plaintiffs must invite the other party to attend a brief exploratory mediation session. The session is nonbinding, parties may exit immediately and no one is forced to settle. Yet the structural effect has been profound:

• Annual mediation filings grew from fewer than 10,000 to more than 150,000 cases.
• The settlement rate approaches 45% when parties proceed beyond the initial session.
• Court filings in covered categories declined significantly.

For U.S. readers, the takeaway is not compulsion, but design. The Italian model lowers the threshold for dialogue, introduces a neutral early and preserves full access to courts—much like a well-designed pre-trial conference or early neutral evaluation, but with a facilitative rather than adjudicative focus.

Notably, when Italy recently created an ADR process for renewable energy permitting disputes, it adopted a decisional, regulator-led model limited to narrow procedural issues. In doing so, it did not carry over the very facilitative structure that proved so effective in its civil justice system—reinforcing the article’s central point: ADR works best when it is architected intentionally, not added as an afterthought.

A Practical Blueprint for U.S. Regulatory Dispute Systems

Drawing on both European lessons and U.S. experience, American regulators could benefit from a multi-tier dispute architecture that aligns process with problem:

1. Early technical consultation: Informal, on-demand access to agency or neutral expertise to clarify requirements before a dispute escalates
2. Facilitated gateway session (soft mandatory): A brief, low-burden session—similar to Italy’s model or a structured pre-enforcement conference—designed to surface options and narrow issues, with an easy opt-out
3. Voluntary mediation: Full facilitative mediation for parties willing to engage in interest-based problem-solving
4. Expert determination: Binding decisions on discrete technical questions (engineering, modeling, environmental science) without full adversarial proceedings
5. Arbitration or quasi-arbitral ADR: Confidential, expert-driven resolution where a binding outcome is appropriate
6. Agency adjudication and judicial review: Reserved for precedent-setting, statutory interpretation or constitutional issues

Importantly, the system need not be linear. Parties can enter at different points depending on urgency, complexity and regulatory posture—an approach already familiar in many U.S. agencies.

Why This Matters Now in the United States

Several current U.S. priorities make these lessons especially timely:

• Energy transition and transmission buildout: Renewable generation and grid modernization face the same siting, environmental and community conflicts that have slowed projects abroad.
• Infrastructure investment: Federal funding for transportation, water and broadband internet will generate multiparty disputes where early facilitation can prevent litigation.
• AI and emerging technologies: Regulatory uncertainty and technical complexity make early dialogue essential.
• Modern enforcement models: Increasing reliance on negotiated compliance, consent decrees and cure periods aligns naturally with ADR-centric system design.

In each of these areas, the question is not whether ADR belongs in regulatory governance, but how deliberately it is designed.

First Principles for Regulatory ADR

Effective dispute system design rests on several principles familiar to U.S. practitioners:

• Process pluralism, not one-size-fits-all procedures
• Early engagement before positions harden
• Technically competent neutrals
• Structural nudges rather than rigid mandates
• Preservation of legal rights and access to courts
• Transparency and accountability appropriate to public regulation

Looking Ahead

Europe’s struggle with RED III is not a failure of ambition, but rather one of implementation. The lesson for the United States is constructive rather than cautionary. We already possess the statutory authority, institutional experience and professional expertise to design regulatory dispute systems that work.

The challenge is to use them intentionally.

Energy transition, AI governance and infrastructure modernization are too consequential for procedural improvisation. They demand the same design sophistication we apply to substantive regulation. Europe’s experience shows the cost of neglecting that design. American regulators and practitioners have the opportunity—and the tools—to do better.