The European Commission has proposed giving itself legally-enshrined power to plan the expansion of European electricity grids, as it scrambles to update an ageing network to meet the soaring demands of the clean energy transition. The proposed changes to the Trans-European Networks for Energy, or TEN-E, regulation, would give the Commission power to conduct “central scenario” planning to assess what upgrades are needed to the grid — a marked change from the current decentralized system of grid planning. The Commission would conduct this planning every four years. Where no projects are planned, the Commission would have power to intervene. The proposal was part of the European Grids Package, a sweeping set of changes to EU energy laws released Wednesday. Electrification of everything from transport and heating to industrial processes is essential as Europe moves away from planet-warming fossil fuels. But that puts huge strain on networks, and the Commission estimates electricity demand will double by 2040. An efficient, pan-European electricity grid is essential to meeting this demand. “The European Grids Package is more than just a policy,” said Teresa Ribera, the EU’s decarbonization chief, in a statement Tuesday. “It’s our commitment for an inclusive future, where every part of Europe reaps the benefits of the energy revolution: cheaper clean energy, reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels, secure supply and protection against price shocks.” Along with centralized planning, the Grids Package proposes speeding up permitting of grids and other energy projects to get the infrastructure faster, including relaxing environmental planning rules for grids. Currently planning and building new grid infrastructure takes around 10 years. It would do this by amending four laws: the TEN-E regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Markets Directive, and the Gas Market Directive. The package also proposes “cost-sharing” funding models to ensure those countries that benefit from projects contribute to its financing, and speeding up a number of key energy interconnection projects across Europe.

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.

ROME — Italy’s right-wing government is turning its back on two historical referendums to place a bet on unproven nuclear technology. Some 35 years after Italy’s last nuclear power plant closed, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her ministers are drawing up plans to go nuclear once again in a bid to meet a growing demand for decarbonized electricity. This time, however, it will be through next-generation nuclear technologies called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). “We need to make some long-term choices. That’s why we have chosen to restart the development of nuclear power, making a bet on mini-reactors that are safe and clean sources of energy,” Meloni said in a speech earlier this year. On Wednesday, Italy’s Environment and Energy Security Ministry announced that the law outlining the national plan to restart nuclear energy production had cleared the final institutional hurdle and was now ready to be sent to parliament. Speaking at a July 16 event organized by Italy’s main business lobby, Confindustria, Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin said should Rome approve it, the first plants could be operational by the end of this decade or in the early 2030s. According to government estimates, nuclear fission could meet from 11 percent to 22 percent of national demand by 2050. Italy was previously home to a number of nuclear power plants. But following the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, which sent a cloud of radioactive dust over much of Europe, Italians voted against nuclear power in a referendum the following year. By 1990 Italy had shuttered its plants and nuclear power was no more. In 2011 the decision was reconfirmed with another referendum shortly after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. “This government has demonstrated up until now that they aren’t taking into account at all what has been a very clear expression of the popular will as demonstrated in two referendums,” said Enrico Cappelletti, a member of the lower house of parliament and part of the opposition Five Star Movement. Critics such as Cappelletti argue the process will be slow and expensive, and will increase power bills for Italians — already the second highest in Europe. However, the government insists that adding nuclear to the power mix is crucial to meeting growing energy demand, which is forecast to double by 2050. SPLITTING THE ATOM The mid-July Confindustria gathering saw business and political community elites pack into a parliamentary committee room. With billions of euros in investment on the line — an EY study estimates Italy’s nuclear market could reach €50 billion by 2050 — it’s no surprise the event was an irresistible draw for the companies in pole position to benefit. Although no nuclear power plants operate in the country, several Italian engineering companies are active in the sector abroad. Ultimately, however, any nuclear renaissance would almost certainly require the participation of firms in countries that already have active nuclear power plants, such as France or the U.S. Utility company Enel, infrastructure giant Leonardo, and energy engineering firm Ansaldo Energia — all under varying levels of state ownership — have formed a consortium called Nuclitalia to study viable options for a return to nuclear power. In June, Italy joined the French-led European Nuclear Alliance, an initiative aimed at promoting nuclear energy throughout the EU. Speaking at the Confindustria event, Fratin said there was a need for a continuous source of power to integrate with the variable energy produced by renewables. Nuclear was the obvious choice, he said, though officially, a final decision will follow a careful study of the costs and benefits. “We are a country that at the moment … is not able to meet its national demand for electricity,” Fratin said. “There is only one path for us to take if we want to remain among the rich countries of the world.” The lively discussion demonstrated that the debate has moved beyond the shadow of Chernobyl to focus on financial arguments. “When we talk about sustainability, we need to look at it from all angles,” Katiuscia Eroe, a representative of the climate NGO Legambiente, told the gathering. “Including the logic of costs, and therefore, economic sustainability.” Nuclear, she added, wasn’t competitive with renewables given the huge investments needed to get it up and running. TINY TECH Stefano Monti, president of the European Nuclear Society, told POLITICO that nuclear power is key to providing a steady supply to the grid of decarbonized energy, known as the baseload, supplementing renewables in moments when there isn’t enough sun or wind. The use of new technology is also politically important as it allows the government to argue that the prior referendums don’t apply. SMRs use miniaturized technology in effect to factory-produce key reactor components, thereby achieving economies of scale and reducing costs. AMRs use non-traditional fission technology and are powered by spent fuel from other reactors, such as SMRs, potentially reducing the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored. Neither has ever been built in Western Europe — while in the U.S., one attempted SMR had to be abandoned after costs spiraled. Monti said the government may ultimately revert to traditional power plant designs, even though these have incurred huge cost overruns in Europe in recent years. It may also be the case, he added, that the energy source will need to be subsidized for a while. Still, Monti said, nuclear energy was financially competitive with solar and wind energy when considering the additional infrastructure, such as batteries, needed to make renewables sufficiently reliable to power the grid. Michele Governatori, an academic and a member of climate think tank Ecco, said he didn’t think there would ultimately be any return to nuclear, “but that doesn’t mean that it won’t cause damage.” The buzz around nuclear, he said, was allowing the government to sidestep politically unpopular decisions on how to accelerate the build-out of renewables. He said the economics argue against fission — nuclear power is expensive and plants have to be running 24/7 for the finances to work. But given the fluctuating production levels of renewable energy, on sunny or windy days, nuclear energy might end up going unused. The government estimates there’s a backlog of 150 gigawatts of renewable energy projects currently held up by paperwork. According to Governatori, Rome’s embrace of nuclear energy was a way of avoiding a showdown with regional governments over permitting problems, given that local authorities often hold up developments due to so-called NIMBY concerns. There are also lobbying interests in play. “The big national champions have a bigger stake in nuclear than renewables,” said Governatori. Developers of renewable energy tend to be smaller “and are more distant from the businesses that are close to the state,” he said. CONVENIENT CUDGEL The government’s 2024 energy and climate plan estimates that nuclear power could save approximately €17 billion in costs compared to an all-renewables strategy. However, a report by Italy’s central bank found that while adding nuclear to the grid may help flatten swings in electricity prices, it was unlikely to deliver any savings. A paucity of know-how risks delaying construction and adding costs, while “the processing, enrichment and preparation of fuel is concentrated in a few plants, largely in countries with elevated political risk (Russia first and foremost),” the central bank noted. Meanwhile, while the previous referendums may provide ammunition for the opposition to criticize the government, they are unlikely to pose a significant obstacle. “The previous two referendums don’t create any obstacle whatsoever for the current governing majority,” said Carlo Fusaro, a law professor at the University of Florence. Referendums in Italy can revoke laws that are already on the books, but they don’t tie the government’s hands in perpetuity, especially as the last one was more than a decade ago. In theory, the opposition could call another referendum if it’s able to gather the required signatures, though polls show that public opinion has grown steadily more pro-nuclear. Five Star’s Cappelletti said it’s premature to discuss the options, given that the law has not yet been presented. “We’ll see how things evolve. We can’t exclude anything, even eventually proposing a referendum.”

With the European Green Deal and the Clean Industrial Deal, the EU set a clear course for the economic transition, serving Europe’s strategic interests of competitiveness and growth while also tackling climate change. For the EU to reach its industrial decarbonization and competitiveness objectives, the Draghi report identifies an annual investment gap of up to €800 billion. High-quality, reliable and comparable corporate disclosures, including on sustainability risks and impacts, are key to inform investment decisions and channel financing for the transition. EU rules on corporate sustainability reporting have been expected to fill the existing data gap. While simplification as such is a helpful aim, it looks like the Omnibus initiative is going too far. With the current direction of travel, confirmed by the Council in its agreement on 24 June, the Omnibus is likely to severely hinder the availability of comparable environmental, social and governance (ESG) data, which investors need to scale up investment for industrial decarbonization and sustainable growth, thus impairing their capacity to support the just transition. > The Omnibus is likely to severely hinder the availability of comparable > environmental, social and governance (ESG) data, which investors need to scale > up investment for industrial decarbonization and sustainable growth. The European Commission introduced the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Taxonomy to respond to real needs, voiced over the years by investors and businesses alike. These rules were intended to close the ESG data gap, bring clarity and structure to the disclosures needed to allocate capital effectively for a just transition, and foster long-term value creation. These frameworks were not meant as ‘tick-box compliance exercises’, but as practical tools, designed to inform capital allocation, and better manage risks and opportunities. Now, the Omnibus proposal risks steering these rules of course. Although investors have repeatedly shown support for maintaining these rules and their fundamentals, we are now witnessing a broad-scale weakening of their core substance. Far from delivering clarity, the Omnibus initiative introduces uncertainty, penalizes first movers, who are likely to face higher costs due to adjusting the systems they put in place, and undermines the foundations of Europe’s sustainable finance architecture at a time when certainty is most needed to scale up investment for a just transition to a low-carbon economy. THE COST OF DOWNGRADING SUSTAINABILITY DATA The EU’s reporting framework is a critical enabler of investor confidence, for them to support the clean transition, and resilience building of our economy. It aims to replace a fragmented patchwork of voluntary disclosures with reliable, comparable data, giving both companies and investors the clarity they need to navigate the future. Let’s be clear: streamlining corporate reporting is a goal that is shared by investors and businesses alike. But simplification must be smart: by cutting duplications, not cutting corners. The Omnibus is likely to result in excluding up to 90 percent of companies from the scope of CSRD and EU Taxonomy reporting, if not more, should the council’s position, which includes a €450 million turnover threshold, be retained. This would significantly restrict the availability of reliable data that investors need to make investment decisions, manage risks, identify opportunities and comply with their own legal requirements. Voluntary reporting is unlikely to bridge this data gap, both in terms of the number of companies that will effectively report and regarding the quality of information reported. Using basic, voluntary questionnaires that were designed for very small entities would result in piecemeal disclosures, downgrading data quality, comparability and reliability. Market feedback has already demonstrated that it is necessary to go beyond voluntary reporting to avoid these shortcomings. This is precisely why EU regulators designed the CSRD in the first place. As a result of the Omnibus initiative, investors will likely focus on a limited number of investee companies that are in scope of CSRD and provide reliable information — limiting the financing opportunities for smaller, out-of-scope companies, including mid-caps. This will also restrict the offer and diversity of sustainable financial products — despite the clear appetite of end investors, including EU citizens, for these investments. This runs counter to the objectives of scaling-up sustainable growth laid down in the Clean Industrial Deal, and of mobilizing retail savings to help bridge the EU’s investment gap as proposed in the Savings and Investments Union. CUTTING DUE DILIGENCE BLINDS INVESTORS The CSDDD is also facing significant risks in the current institutional discussions. Originally, the introduction of a meaningful framework to help companies identify, prevent and address serious human rights and environmental risks across their value chains marked an important step to accelerate the just transition to industrial decarbonization and sustainable value creation. For investors, the CSDDD provides a structured approach that improves transparency and enables a more accurate assessment of material environmental and human rights risks across portfolios. This fills long     standing gaps in due diligence data and supports better-informed decisions. In addition, the CSDDD provisions to adopt and implement corporate transition plans including science-based climate targets, in line with CSRD disclosures, are providing an essential forward-looking tool for investors to support industrial decarbonization, consistent with the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal’s objectives. By limiting due diligence obligations to direct suppliers (so-called Tier 1), the Omnibus proposal risks turning the directive into a compliance formality, diminishing its value for businesses and investors alike. The original CSDDD got the fundamentals right: it allowed companies to focus on the most salient risks across their entire value chain where harm is most likely to occur. A supplier-based model would miss precisely the meaningful information and material risks that investors need visibility on. It would also diverge from widely adopted international standards such as the OECD guidelines for Multinational Companies and the UN Guiding Principles. The requirement for companies to adopt and implement their climate transition plans is also at risk, being seen as overly stringent. However, the obligation to adopt and act on transition plans was designed as an obligation of means, not results, giving businesses flexibility while providing investors with a clearer view of corporate alignment with climate targets. Watering down or downright removing these provisions could effectively turn transition plans into paperwork with no follow-through and negatively impact the trust that investors can put in corporate decarbonization pledges. Additionally, the council proposal to set the CSDDD threshold to companies above 5,000 employees, if adopted, will result in fewer than 1,000 companies from a few EU member states being covered. Weakening the CSDDD would add confusion and leave companies and investors navigating a patchwork of diverging legal interpretations across member states. A SMARTER PATH TO SIMPLIFICATION IS NEEDED How the EU handles this moment will speak volumes. Over the past decade, the EU has become a global reference point in sustainable finance, shaping policies and practices worldwide. This is proof that competitiveness and sustainability can reinforce, not contradict, one another. But that leadership is now at risk. > How the EU handles this moment will speak volumes. Over the past decade, the > EU has become a global reference point in sustainable finance, shaping > policies and practices worldwide. The position taken by the council last week does not address some of the major concerns from investors highlighted above and would lead to even more fragmentation in reporting and due diligence requirements across companies and member states. While the window for change is narrowing, the European Parliament retains the capacity to steer policy back on track. The recipe for success and striking the right balance between stakeholders’ concerns is to streamline rules while preserving what makes Europe’s sustainability framework effective, workable and credible, across both sustainability reporting and due diligence. Simplify where it adds value, but don’t dismantle the tools that investors rely on to assess risk, allocate capital and support the transition. What the market needs now is not another reset, but consistency, continuity and stable implementation: technical adjustments, clear guidance, proportionate regimes and legal stability. The EU must stand by the rules it has put in place, not pull the rug out from under those using them to finance Europe’s future. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------