Rome, 8 April 2026 – ActionAid Italia, Focsiv, Legambiente, Movimento Laudato Si’ and ReCommon – with the international support of CAN Europe, Counter Balance and Oil Change International – express their disappointment at the new energy sector policy of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), the Italian government-controlled financial institution whose mission is to support the national economy by financing infrastructure, public entities, businesses, and international development cooperation. The new policy introduces only limited changes compared to the previous version and fails to address the urgent need to realign investments in line with climate objectives.
Despite the reduction in the number of projects funded by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti relating to the fossil fuel energy sector, the policy does not introduce a clear and structured shift towards climate objectives. This expectation was reinforced by the fact that its revision had been preceded by a public consultation, aimed in part at assessing the contribution of civil society organisations.
In particular, the organisations note that the policy still refers to gas as “an important contribution to the energy transition”, necessary “to preserve energy security”.
Numerous studies show that Italy’s existing gas infrastructure is capable of meeting domestic demand. Furthermore, in a scenario consistent with climate objectives, today’s gas infrastructure has more than sufficient reserve margins to ensure a secure energy system in terms of volume, without the need to invest in further expansion of production.
In this context, further investment in gas risks resulting in unused capacity and, consequently, in stranded assets . For Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, this would mean exposing itself to the risk of allocating capital to infrastructure destined to lose value before the end of its economic life, with possible repercussions on the soundness of investments and the efficient use of public savings collected and managed by the Group. Furthermore, the policy makes a formal distinction between conventional and unconventional gas, thereby granting potential unconditional support to infrastructure linked to conventional fossil gas.
As regards unconventional gas, however, the financial institution applies the term in a limited manner, excluding operations in ultra-deep waters, in the Amazon Basin and in the Arctic region. Consequently, even projects characterised by high environmental and climate risks could remain eligible for funding.
CDP views favourably biofuels produced “from residual or waste biomass and from sustainable raw materials, i.e. those that do not compete with the food supply chain and are compatible with sustainable land use”, without, however, specifying the methodology used to assess compliance with these criteria.
Finally, although CDP is constantly called upon to manage third-party funds – for example, the Italian Climate Fund – references to this aspect in the policy are marginal and, consequently, unregulated, with the risk that the institution may allow the financing of operations with third-party funds that it would otherwise be unable to finance with its own funds.
The organisations’ concern is that, in the absence of a stringent energy sector policy, the volumes financed by CDP for fossil fuel infrastructure may rise again, as has happened in the case of the other Italian public financial institution, SACE.