TERNEUZEN, the Netherlands — Europe’s huge chemicals sector is campaigning to weaken the European Union’s most important climate policy — and Brussels is listening. At a meeting in Antwerp on Wednesday, industry chiefs will attempt to persuade European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and national leaders to water down the Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They come with a well-rehearsed pitch: Their sector, one of the biggest in Europe, is in crisis.  Factories are being squeezed by a perfect storm of high energy prices, intense competition from China, weak demand from downstream industries — and the world’s most expensive carbon pricing scheme. Virtually no other jurisdiction in the world faces carbon costs as high as the EU, they argue: If current plans to strengthen the scheme go ahead, Europe’s chemicals industry could be dead within a decade. “Our competitors abroad don’t face comparable ETS regimes,” Markus Steilemann, CEO of German chemicals producer Covestro, told POLITICO, calling for “an urgent reform of the EU ETS to align climate ambition with competitive reality.” For environmental advocates, however, touching the ETS is akin to sacrilege. The 20-year-old scheme — which puts strict limits on the amount of planet-warming gases industry can emit, and covers nearly half of the bloc’s emission — is the bedrock of EU climate policy, forcing industry to find cleaner energy sources. Industries currently pay around €80 for every ton of carbon they emit, and by 2039 will no longer be allowed to emit any carbon at all.  But the ETS legislation is up for review this year, and momentum is growing for it to be significantly weakened. Several member countries and political groups — including von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party — have signaled they want to see reforms. “Becoming greener cannot be our goal; it means becoming poorer,” Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker said on Tuesday, adding he would push for exemptions to the ETS to “ensure that domestic industry remains competitive and that our companies do not relocate.” If the ETS is substantially weakened, it would be the biggest green policy yet to fall victim to the green backlash that has defined the first 14 months of von der Leyen’s second term. ALARMED? YOU SHOULD BE EU chemicals industry body CEFIC — one of the richest lobby groups in Brussels, according to the Corporate Europe Observatory — has long warned that doomsday is near for Europe’s chemicals sector. It has released report after report outlining the loss of market share to China, the closure of plants and plummeting investment. It has even sponsored an advertising campaign in Brussels metro stations that booms out in bold letters: “Alarmed? You should be. Europe is losing production sites, quality jobs and independence.” It ends with a plea to “save our industry.” Industries currently pay around €80 for every ton of carbon they emit. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images That warning is echoed by industry chiefs. Markus Kamieth, CEO of BASF, Europe’s largest chemicals company, told reporters late last year that Europe “has the theoretical potential” to compete with the U.S. and China. “But [in] real life, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot way too often.” The chemicals lobby has come under fire for its outsized influence in Brussels. “CEFIC already maintains almost unparalleled access to EU decision-makers, registering the third-highest number of lobby meetings with the European Commission of all lobby organisations in the EU,” said Raphaël Kergueno, a senior policy officer at NGO Transparency International. Still, the sector has plenty of facts to back up its apocalyptic warnings. Since 2023 more than 20 major chemical sites have shut across Europe, costing some 30,000 jobs, according to trade union IndustriALL, which warns that a further 200,000 jobs in the sector could be lost over the next five years.  Chemical investments in Europe collapsed by more than 80 percent in 2025 from the year before, according to a recent report from CEFIC, while capacity closures continue to outpace new projects — turning Europe into a place to shut plants, not build them. Analysts say China’s rapid expansion into chemicals production is adding pressure. “European producers are especially hit, largely due to high energy costs and a reliance on uncompetitive liquid feedstocks, with the least competitive assets continuing to post negative margins,” said Andrew Neale, global head of chemicals at S&P Global Energy. As a result, he said, “longer-term investment in decarbonization and circularity have been deprioritized.” Dow’s recent investment decisions illustrate this well. The American chemical giant plans to close three plants in Europe and cut 800 jobs, citing the need to exit “higher-cost, energy-intensive assets” as the continent’s competitiveness erodes.  “It’s very clear that Europe currently suffers from a lack of competitiveness,” Julia Schlenz, president of Dow Europe, told POLITICO, warning that carbon costs and regulation are moving faster than the infrastructure needed to decarbonize. As the bad news keeps coming, the sector has increasingly called for the ETS to be weakened. In July last year CEFIC published its demands, including the issuance of free carbon allowances, a longer timeline for phasing out emissions, and the inclusion of carbon removal credits. BASF’s Kamieth, who is also president of CEFIC, repeated those calls this week in an interview with the Financial Times, calling the ETS in its current form “obsolete.” Member countries and the European Parliament have already agreed to consider these proposed changes in the upcoming review of the ETS. Germany’s environment minister, Carsten Schneider, said at an energy summit in January that it was “not the case that what has been set until 2039 can never be revised,” adding that it is possible “to allow further free allocations and to permit certificates beyond 2039 as well.” Some business groups and member countries have gone further, with Italy’s primary industry body Confindustria as well as the Czech and Slovak governments calling for the ETS to be temporarily suspended altogether. “In a deeply changed geopolitical context, the ETS, in its current configuration, has revealed all of its limitations,” Confindustria President Emanuele Orsini said in a statement Tuesday. “The ETS is an unbalanced system that fails to deliver the decarbonisation benefits it claims to pursue, while in practice undermining the competitiveness of European industry.” The European Commission sees the electrification of industry as not just a climate imperative but an energy security one. | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images Defenders of the ETS insist this is the wrong approach. They argue that the emphasis should be on more rapid decarbonization, which for the chemicals sector hinges on electrifying its industrial processes. But that, too, costs money. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING The chimneys of Terneuzen chemical plant have been billowing out carbon-laden smoke for more than 60 years, as the Dutch factory sucks in an endless stream of natural gas and pumps out plastic products. But in June last year the industrial buzz subsided as Dow, the plant’s operator, shut down one of its three main “steam-cracker” units because it was too expensive to run — in what has become a common story across Europe’s chemicals sector. Steam-cracking is the crux of the chemicals industry’s reliance on energy. It turns oil or gas into the basic building blocks of plastics and chemicals by heating them to almost 1,000 degrees Celsius. The process uses vast amounts of energy because the furnaces are kept at these temperatures 24 hours a day, seven days a week, making it one of the most energy-intensive processes in Europe.  Electrifying steam-crackers would require huge amounts of clean electricity — which the industry insists is simply not yet available. “One thing we know is if we are going to switch to electric cracking, eventually, when the technology is there, is that we need significant amounts of renewable electricity delivered here,” says Dennis Kredler, Dow’s director for EU affairs in Brussels. Terneuzen is not an outlier. Across Europe’s chemical clusters, decarbonization targets are racing ahead of the power grids meant to support them. “If you can’t get renewable electricity off the grid, we said, okay, we need to do it ourselves and find these leading providers to secure wind and solar energy for our sites in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and so on,” LyondellBasell CEO Peter Vanacker told POLITICO. “But we need support from Brussels.” The European Commission sees the electrification of industry as not just a climate imperative but an energy security one. In an interview with POLITICO in December, EU energy chief Dan Jorgensen said the shift would be good for the bloc. “There is not one European country that will not benefit from Europe being more independent on the energy side,” he said. German Greens MEP Jutta Paulus agrees, arguing that Europe’s competitiveness will ultimately depend less on looser rules than on faster access to renewable power and new markets for low-carbon chemicals. “Every chemical industry on this planet will have to transition away from fossil fuels — that’s very clear,” she said. Some right-of-center MEPs also broadly agree. Peter Liese, from the European People’s Party, said the chemicals industry is the reason why the ETS debate is so difficult. “Chemical companies talk about their costs due to the ETS. However, they do not talk about how they intend to decarbonize. The purpose of the ETS is not to torment companies, but to encourage them to decarbonize.” Peter Liese, from the European People’s Party, said the chemicals industry is the reason why the ETS debate is so difficult. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images However, others in the EPP take a less sympathetic approach, and the group’s overall position has yet to be clarified. Rob Ingram, head of the plastics division at British chemicals giant INEOS, insists the sector is dedicated to decarbonizing — just not as fast as current laws demand. “I’m convinced that all the peers in the industry absolutely know that we need to decarbonize and develop a second economy and want to do that,” Ingram told POLITICO. “The question is, how do we get there?”  He argues that if the EU over-regulates high-emitting sectors, those sectors will just go offshore to countries with weaker or no carbon controls.  “De-industrialization of Europe is actually worse for the planet,” he says. LEAKING CARBON It was this risk — known as “carbon leakage” — that prompted the EU initially to grant free ETS allowances to industries most at risk of moving offshore. But Brussels has now attempted to address that by charging a carbon tax on imports, and is phasing out free allowances.  Chemicals, though, don’t fall under the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, giving extra force to their call for continued free allowances. And they have evidence that the fear of leakage is being realized: While Europe debates how to keep its chemical plants alive, BASF is pressing ahead with its largest investment ever, a €10 billion fully integrated chemicals mega-plant — in China.  Tatiana Santos, head of chemicals policy at the European Environmental Bureau, says the EU’s response should not be to deregulate, arguing the EU’s selling point is precisely its higher environmental standards. “At the end of the day, we cannot compete with China or the U.S. in lower standards.” But that argument doesn’t persuade Peter Huntsman, CEO of chemicals producer Huntsman. “When is it time to step back and ask, are we accomplishing anything?” he asked, dismissing the argument that if you give the ETS time to work its magic, it will eventually force industry to find affordable, competitive, low-carbon means of production. “The chemical industry does not have 10 years left,” he said. Zia Weise and Francesca Micheletti contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — For once, Europe’s heavy industry is lobbying to save a climate law.  Manufacturers are worried the European Commission is undermining the bloc’s new carbon tariff regime, a key pillar of EU climate policy, with a plan to give itself discretionary powers to suspend parts of the new measure. They warn the move is throwing investment plans into disarray and threatening much-needed decarbonization projects. The EU executive wants to grant itself the power to exempt goods from the just-launched carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which requires importers of certain products to pay for planet-warming pollution emitted during the production process.  This levy is designed to protect European manufacturers — which are obliged by EU law to pay for each ton of CO2 they emit — from being out-competed by cheaper, dirtier imports. Importers of Chinese steel, for example, now pay the difference between Beijing’s carbon price and the bloc’s, ensuring it bears the same pollution costs as made-in-EU steel.  The prospect of having that protection yanked away by the Commission has spooked European manufacturers — particularly after a dozen EU governments immediately started campaigning to apply the exemption to fertilizers in an effort to protect farmers from higher import costs.  CBAM “is linked to investment, but it’s also linked to survival, actually, of some members,” said Antoine Hoxha, director of industry association Fertilizers Europe. “We can compete with anyone on a level playing field. But we need that level playing field.”  Fertilizer producers aren’t the only ones worried. Most major industry bodies representing CBAM-covered sectors in Brussels — which, aside from fertilizers, include steel, iron, aluminum, cement, hydrogen and electricity — told POLITICO they and their members had concerns about the Commission’s plans.  They warn that the new exemption clause, besides opening EU companies to unfair competition, risks undermining CBAM’s other goal of encouraging the bloc’s trading partners to switch to cleaner production methods, as it creates uncertainty over the level of EU demand for low-carbon imports.  “We see this as some kind of sword of Damocles. If it remains like this, it’s going to send a really discouraging signal to European and international investors, and that will seriously slow down industrial decarbonization,” said Laurent Donceel, industrial policy director at Hydrogen Europe. “We would urge lawmakers to reconsider this, because we feel it undermines the entirety of CBAM.”   Lawmakers in the European Parliament, worried about a domino effect if the Commission gives in to demands to exempt fertilizers, appear to be listening. In an environment committee meeting last week, MEPs from the far left to the center right criticized the EU executive’s proposed clause.  The changes still need the approval of MEPs and EU governments before they can come into effect, and “it is unlikely there is a majority to do so in the Parliament,” said Pascal Canfin, a French MEP and environmental coordinator of the centrist Renew group. “Precisely because it would trigger other requests and empty [out] the CBAM.”  VAGUE WORDING The Commission proposed the suspension clause, known as Article 27a, in mid-December as part of a host of other changes to CBAM. The clause initially flew under the radar before governments seized on it to demand the exemption of fertilizers in early January.  The new article gives the EU executive the power to remove goods from the mechanism in the event of “severe harm to the Union internal market due to serious and unforeseen circumstances related to the impact on the prices of goods.” The exemption remains in effect “until those serious and unforeseeable circumstances have passed.”  Industry representatives warn that this wording is so exceedingly vague — setting no time limit or trigger threshold — that it leaves CBAM vulnerable to political pressure campaigns.  Case in point: Fertilizers. A group of 12 governments has argued that CBAM has pushed up costs for farmers, and should trigger a suspension. But analysts and manufacturers dispute the idea that the new levy is to blame for high fertilizer costs, while also noting that increasing import prices due to CBAM are anything but unforeseen.  Farmers “are caught in between high energy prices that lead to high fertilizer prices on one side, and on the other side agriculture commodities prices have gone down, so they are in a squeeze and they need a real solution,” said Hoxha from Fertilizers Europe. “But it’s not this.” After a meeting with agriculture ministers in January, the Commission also clarified that any exemption under Article 27a would apply retroactively — causing “shock” among industry, Hoxha said. Exempting goods from CBAM also weakens the EU’s carbon market, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which obliges companies to buy permits to cover their pollution.  Before the levy came into effect, the bloc shielded its manufacturers from cheaper foreign competition by granting them a certain amount of ETS permits for free — a practice that has been criticized for undermining the case for decarbonization. With CBAM launched, those pollution subsidies will be phased out.  But the Commission confirmed to POLITICO that if a product is exempted from CBAM, the affected companies would continue receiving free pollution permits: “The … reduction of the free allocations for the relevant period would not apply,” a Commission spokesperson said.  CROSS-INDUSTRY CONCERN The proposed clause has sent shockwaves through industry beyond the fertilizer sector.  “Such emergency procedures create legal uncertainty with regards to a cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy,” steel producer association Eurofer said in a statement, noting that increasing import prices are an intentional feature of the system, not an unforeseen bug. Cement Europe is “concerned that Article 27a would introduce major legal uncertainty into CBAM. An open‑ended exemption for ‘unforeseen circumstances,’ potentially even applied retroactively, risks undermining the predictability industry needs,” the association’s public affairs director Cliona Cunningham said.   At Eurelectric, which represents Europe’s electricity industry, “some of our members have expressed concern about the way Article 27a has been introduced,” the association said in a statement, also stressing the need for predictability.  “If there is a perception that CBAM obligations can be lifted for political or undefined unforeseen reasons, this may weaken incentives to invest in local decarbonisation and low-carbon production both within the EU and beyond,” Eurelectric warned.  Hydrogen Europe’s Donceel said that for producers of fertilizer, including hydrogen-derived ammonia, “this is becoming a huge issue … even before it gets adopted or comes into force — already, the possibility of an exemption is wrecking the business case for a lot of our members and a lot of key companies in these sectors. So this Article 27a definitively came as a shock.”  Only some metals producers supported the Commission’s proposal.  Given that CBAM is a new and complex policy, a suspension clause “is just realistic and good policymaking,” European Metals director James Watson said in a statement. “No regulatory system is flawless from the outset; an emergency brake, activated in certain conditions, is a matter of common sense.” His association represents producers of metals other than iron and steel. European Aluminium, which considers CBAM insufficient to protect their sector from unfair competition, wants to see Article 27a more clearly defined. But in general, “we see it basically as an emergency clause that our sector always wanted,” said Emanuele Manigrassi, the association’s climate director.  MIFFED CLIMATE CHAMPIONS In response to questions, a Commission spokesperson sought to reassure industry that CBAM “is not being cancelled for any of the sectors in scope” and that it was committed to providing “regulatory certainty for companies to move forward with their investments, especially for projects aiming to produce low-carbon products and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”  Yet the proposal has especially rankled companies that see themselves as frontrunners in decarbonizing their industries, taking on the risk of early upfront investments. “You need to have a strong and predictable framework on carbon pricing, especially to back up industry frontrunners,” said Joren Verschaeve, who manages the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete. “The risk with a provision as proposed like Article 27a is that you inject uncertainty in this whole market … I think this is the last thing we need right now.”  The carbon border tax is also meant to encourage other countries’ industries to switch to cleaner production, as low-carbon imports are subject to lower CBAM fees.  But for companies already planning to ramp up climate-friendly manufacturing outside the EU in response to CBAM, the Commission’s move has also raised questions about whether there will be sufficient demand for their low-carbon imports to warrant the investment.  Norwegian fertilizer giant Yara International recently warned it would have to rethink a multi-billion low-carbon project if the mechanism was suspended. “It’s a huge concern to us, and the uncertainty grows every day. We want to reduce our emissions, but we will not do it purely out of goodwill. We need a clear business case, and CBAM is a key enabler here,” said Tiffanie Stephani, vice president for government relations at Yara.  “Any suspension would undermine the very companies that are taking concrete steps to decarbonize,” she added. 

A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

LONDON — Ministers must act now to address an “emerging risk to gas supply security,” the government’s official independent energy advisers have warned.  The government must make plans to avert a threat to future gas supplies, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) said.  While the advisers say the conditions creating a gas supply crisis are unlikely, any shortage would have a severe impact on the country. In its first annual assessment of Britain’s gas security, expected to be released later today but seen by POLITICO, the NESO said diminishing reserves of gas in the North Sea and competition for imports are creating new energy security risks, even as the country’s decarbonization push reduces overall demand for the fossil fuel.  Britain is projected to have sufficient gas supplies for normal weather scenarios by winter 2030/31, but in the event of severe cold weather and an outage affecting key infrastructure, supply would fall well short of demand, NESO projects.   The scenario in the report involves what the NESO calls the “unlikely event” of a one-in-20-year cold spell lasting 11 days alongside the loss of vital infrastructure.   If this were to occur, the consequences of a shortfall in gas supply could be dire.   It could trigger emergency measures including cutting off gas from factories, power stations, and — in extreme scenarios — homes as well. It could take weeks or months to return the country to normal.   The vast majority of homes still use gas boilers for heating.   VULNERABILITY Informed by the NESO’s findings, ministers have published a consultation setting out a range of options for shoring up gas security.  It comes amid growing concern in Whitehall about the U.K.’s vulnerability to gas supply disruptions. Russia is actively mapping key offshore infrastructure like gas pipelines and ministers have warned it has the capability to “damage or destroy infrastructure in deepwater,” in the event that tensions over Ukraine spill over into a wider European conflict.  While Britain has long enjoyed a secure flow of domestically-produced gas from the North Sea — which still supplies more than a third of the fuel — NESO’s report says gas fields are experiencing “rapid decline.” The amount available to meet demand in Britain falls to “12 to 13 percent winter-on-winter until 2035,” it says.  That will leave the U.K. ever more dependent on imports, via pipeline from Norway and increasingly via ship-borne liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. — and Britain will be competing with other countries for the supply of both.  The report projects that during peak demand periods in the 2030s, the Britain’s import dependency will be as high as 90 percent or more.  Overall, gas demand will be lower in the 2030s because of the shift to renewable electricity and electric heating, but demand will remain relatively high on very cold days, and when there is little wind to power offshore turbines, requiring gas power stations to be deployed, the report says.  “This presents emerging risks that we will need to understand to ensure reliable supplies are maintained for consumers,” it adds.  Reducing demand for gas by decarbonizing will be key, the report says, and risks are higher in scenarios where the country slows down its shift away from gas.   But decarbonization alone will not be enough to ensure the U.K. would meet the so-called “N-1 test” — a sufficient supply of gas even if the “single largest piece” of gas infrastructure fails — during a prolonged cold spell in winter 2030/31. In that scenario, “peak day demand” is projected to reach 461 million cubic meters (mcm), but supply would fall to 385 mcm, resulting in a supply deficit of 76 mcm, a shortfall of around 16 percent of what is needed to power the country on that day.  That means ministers should start considering alternative options now, including the construction of new infrastructure like storage facilities, liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals, or new onshore pipelines to ensure more gas can get from LNG import sites to the rest of the country. The government consultation will look at these and other options.   The critical piece of gas infrastructure considered under the N-1 test is not identified for security reasons, but is likely to be a major import pipeline from Norway or an LNG terminal. The report says that even “smaller losses … elsewhere in the gas supply system” could threaten gas security in extreme cold weather.  GAS SECURITY ‘PARAMOUNT’  The findings will likely be seized on by the oil and gas industry to argue for a more liberal licensing and tax regime in the North Sea, on a day when the government announced its backing for more fossil fuel production in areas already licensed for exploration.  But such measures are unlikely to be a silver bullet. The report says: “Exploration of new fields is unlikely to deliver material new capacity within the required period.”  Deborah Petterson, NESO’s director of resilience and emergency management, said that gas supply would be “sufficient to meet demand under normal weather conditions.”  “We have, however, identified an emerging risk to gas supply security where decarbonization is slowest or in the unlikely event of the loss of the single largest piece of gas infrastructure on the system.  “By conducting this analysis, we are able to identify emerging risks early and, crucially, in time for mitigations to be put in place,” she added.  A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said ministers were “working with industry to ensure the gas system is fit for the future, including maintaining security of supply — which is paramount.”   “Gas will continue to play a key role in our energy system as we transition to clean, more secure, homegrown energy,” they added. “This report sets out clearly that decarbonization is the best route to energy security — helping us reduce demand for gas while getting us off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel markets.”  Glenn Bryn-Jacobsen, director of energy resilience and systems at gas network operator National Gas Transmission, said in the short-term, Britain’s gas supply outlook was “robust” but that “looking ahead, we recognise the potential longer-term challenges.” “Gas remains a critical component of Britain’s energy security — keeping homes warm, powering industry, and supporting electricity generation during periods of peak demand and low renewable output,” he added. “In considering potential solutions, it is essential to look at both the gas supply landscape and the investment required in network infrastructure,” he said.