LONDON — Emergency support to help Brits grappling with rising bills should go to “those who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Tuesday — all-but ruling out a Liz Truss-style universal bailout in response to the Iran war. Pledging to “learn the mistakes of the past,” Reeves told MPs Tuesday that, while “contingency planning” is underway for “every eventuality,” the government will be “responsible” with public finances in any new state intervention. Oil and gas prices have soared since the conflict began, leading to higher fuel prices in the U.K. and sparking fears of a sharp increase in family and business energy bills when a regulated price cap period ends in July. Reeves said that, while the full impact of the crisis is not yet known, “the challenges may be significant.” In response to the 2022 energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the government of then-Prime Minister Liz Truss subsidized the bill of every household in the country — a policy backed by the Labour Party at the time. But Reeves today criticized the “unfunded, untargeted” 2022 package, saying it had pushed up borrowing, interest rates and inflation. Between 2022 and 2024, households in the top income decile received an average £1,350 of direct energy bill support, Reeves said, contributing to national debt “still being paid today.” However, the chancellor stopped short of explicitly ruling out a similar approach. She said: “Contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.” The government has already announced a £53 million package of support for households that use heating oil, which are not protected by the energy price cap. The majority of households that use gas and electricity will not see prices rise until July, when the next price cap period ends. The latest expert projections suggest the average annual bill could rise by more than £200 from current levels. On fuel pricing, Reeves said the government would give an update “within the next month,” amid pressure from opposition parties to extend a longstanding five pence tax relief on gasoline and diesel — the fuel duty cut — beyond its expiry date in September. U.K. gasoline prices have have risen by nearly 16 pence per liter since the war began, while diesel has risen by more than 31 pence.

HOUSTON — Oil companies and the world’s largest energy consumers face a significant challenge to rebuild global petroleum supply chains and inventories once the critical Strait of Hormuz bottleneck opens, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday. “We’ve got a lot of oil and gas now that is not flowing into the market,” Wirth said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. “Physical supply chains don’t respond immediately, so even if the strait opens at some point, it will take time to rebuild inventories of the right grades of crude and the right types of fuel.” Wirth cautioned that Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the broader damage of the Middle East war did greater damage to oil and gas markets than the Russia-Ukraine war. Asian nations are running low on diesel and jet fuel. The war has held up deliveries of LNG, fertilizer and other products. Part of the challenge, Wirth said, will be taking a read of the damage. It’s unclear how much production has been shut in, Wirth said, and how badly some facilities were damaged. At the same event, Energy Secretary Chris Wright reiterated to oil executives that he anticipated the global disruption to oil and gas flows would be “short-term,” but he encouraged companies to ramp up production. “Markets do what markets do,” Wright said. “Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more.’”

LONDON — War in the Middle East has put Keir Starmer in a tight spot.  The U.K. government can’t afford to spend big on protecting voters from looming energy bill hikes. But politically, the British prime minister has little choice.  Starmer said Monday that his “first instinct” in responding to the Iran conflict — and the global energy price shock it has triggered — is protecting the household finances of ordinary voters.  “It’s moments like this that tell you what a government is about,” Starmer said, addressing yet another hastily-arranged Downing Street press conference.   “My answer is clear. Whatever the challenges that lie ahead, this government will always support working people.”  He was announcing £53 million in state support for low-income families already hit by a sharp rise in the cost of heating oil, a fuel that warms around one in 20 U.K. homes.    But much bigger, much pricier policy choices are coming down the track.    STRAITENED FINANCES A regulated cap on energy costs is keeping a lid on most people’s household bills. But the current cap expires in July — at which point, without intervention, bills could jump significantly. Wholesale gas prices, which significantly influence household bills, have nearly doubled since the crisis began. Starmer’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told The Mirror newspaper he would “keep looking at how we can do more” to protect consumers. The government must decide how big they go with any support package.  But the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has already sounded the alarm over the government’s fiscal wiggle room. “The public finances are in a more strained position than they were [in 2022] at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, and a sustained increase in energy prices is likely to worsen them further,” the think tank said last week. Starmer sought to contrast the situation now with that faced by Liz Truss’s Conservative government in 2022, and her multi-billion pound energy bailout.  The policy reduced the energy bills of every family in the country. It also, coupled with sweeping tax cuts, led sterling to crash, borrowing costs to soar, and forced Truss out of her job days later.  His Labour government, Starmer said, had “brought stability back to our public finances, stability that I will never put at risk.”  Now he faces the challenge of meeting that pledge on stability, while standing by his cost-of-living guarantee to the British people.   TO TARGET To help people most exposed to rising bills, while avoiding Truss’s fate, the obvious option for Starmer is to make a targeted intervention on energy bills come July.  The heating oil policy follows this approach, aimed squarely at “people who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Monday. The Treasury is similarly looking at “targeted options” for any future energy support package, she told The Times at the weekend.  Starmer himself said on Monday “we’re not ruling anything out.” But the signals are that a universal offer like Truss’s — which ended up costing an eye-watering £23 billion — is unlikely.   Among Labour MPs, the penny is already dropping that not all households will benefit from government largesse.   “It’s right that the government steps in at a time of national crisis and supports those that are struggling,” Suffolk Coastal MP Jenny Riddell-Carpenter told the BBC on Monday. “But it’s complex,” she added. “There isn’t a limitless pot of money.”   And targeting the right people for help will not be straightforward. In 2022, government lacked the data required to know which households should be targeted, Reeves told MPs on the Treasury committee last week.    Work on this inside government is now “more advanced,” she insisted. But officials still lack the targeting data needed, said Ben Westerman, director of policy at the energy campaign group Electrify Britain.    Officials simply “haven’t moved on” with targeting data since the last energy crisis, Westerman said, adding: “That is a failure of governments plural to learn the lessons from last time.”   Energy companies, pushing ministers over the issue, have grown frustrated.   “Industry has called for government to provide the data so that we can target support [to] those who need it. And there’s just been little to no progress on this,” Caitlin Berridge-Dunn, head of external affairs at energy supplier Utilita, said.  NEW AND OLD IDEAS  One option, separate from bills, would be to maintain a longstanding, five pence per liter tax relief on gasoline and diesel, a fuel duty cut which expires in September. The oil price shock has driven up costs at the pump by more than eight pence per liter for gasoline and more than 18 pence for diesel. Another approach officials could opt for, according to Westerman, and reported in The Times Monday, is to expand the existing Warm Homes Discount, a one-off payment to reduce bills for the poorest households, as a vehicle for getting more support to people who need it most.  But that approach, he cautioned, would not catch the “squeezed middle” of households.   Another option is to repeat a trick Starmer and Reeves pulled off at last year’s budget — shifting green and other levies currently added to energy bills into general taxation.   Miliband hailed that move at the time — which saved around £150 on the average energy bills — as a way of “asking some of the wealthiest in our society” to subsidize everyone’s bills.  There is enthusiasm for the principle in Whitehall, even if no decisions have yet been made. A government official, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the £150 cut could be “the beginning of a big principled move” of the burden of energy costs from consumers onto tax.     A study by the industry group the MCS Foundation found that moving all such levies onto taxation could cut bills by up to £410 a year. But that, of course, would put taxpayers on the hook. MCS Foundation estimated it would cost £5.7 billion per year. The most important difference from the Truss era, argued Sam Alvis, a former Labour adviser and now a director of energy security and environment at the influential IPPR think tank, is that Starmer cannot hang around.  The government should be planning any intervention now and not allow prices to rise in July, he argued, avoiding a repeat of the last Conservative government’s mis-step, when it waited until the fall to act.  “I think the public tolerance for [energy bill] increases will be a lot lower than it was in 2022, when Liz Truss waited from February to September to react,” Alvis said. “I just don’t think we’ll have that same time.” 

President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran has Washington’s Asian allies scrambling to address an energy crisis that could destabilize many of their economies within weeks. And so far their appeals for guidance or assistance from the Trump administration are going unheeded. Asian countries are some of the most exposed to the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war because they rely heavily on oil and liquefied natural gas that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which has effectively ground to a halt since the first U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran two weeks ago. In that time, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and others have struggled to decode Trump’s yo-yoing statements about the goals of the operation and when it will end, according to three Asian officials and one former U.S. official who were granted anonymity to discuss the tensions. “We’re not receiving any communication from the Trump administration,” said one of the people, a Washington-based Asia diplomat. Asked what the Trump administration could do, the person said, “Ideally, just end the conflict.” Another one of the officials from an Asian country pointed out that there are actions short of that that the U.S. could take to ease the pressure on energy markets, such as enlisting other countries to participate in its effort to guarantee insurance for tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration has given no indication that it plans to take such actions. The International Energy Agency said Wednesday its member countries would release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency stocks in the largest such reserves distribution in its history, but it’s unclear how much this will ease the pressure on Asian countries. Many Asian economies lack large domestic reserves and are thus particularly exposed to price spikes and supply disruptions. “Our oil reserves are enough for about one month of domestic consumption,” the Washington-based Asian diplomat said. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Washington’s attacks on Iran’s navy should assuage concerns about the safety of ships transiting the Strait, but that does not to appear to have done much to ease jitters. The second Asian official said some of Trump’s comments suggesting he is digging in for a long conflict are ratcheting up concern. His country’s alarm level will be dictated, “by how long this goes on,” the official said. Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. has hit a significant number of Iranian military targets and suggested the war could be over quickly. He has also said it could take four to six weeks, but has also called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” which could take much longer. Countries across the Indo-Pacific are taking measures to limit the impact of a looming cut in oil and gas from the Persian Gulf if supplies don’t resume in the next two weeks. The Philippines and Vietnam have revived Covid-era work-from-home directives to ease consumer demand for gasoline. India has imposed a 20 percent cut in LNG supply to the country’s industrial sector, New Delhi announced Wednesday. The Japanese government announced Wednesday it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves to compensate for a shortfall in imports. The U.S. could see long term effects of leaving its Asian allies to fend on their own. “Foreign embassies need and expect information that explains what the U.S. is doing, reassurance that this is a short-term problem and what our plan is to help,” said Scot Marciel, former principal deputy assistant secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Obama administration. “Not doing that just adds to a pretty strong sense in the region that the administration is not really making a lot of effort to be a good partner.” The White House said allies will ultimately benefit from what is a temporary disruption. “President Trump has been clear that these are short-term disruptions,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners around the world, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies.” The Trump administration has limited options to cushion the impact of the supply interruption on the economies of allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. An oil commodity trader at a major U.S. investment bank said America’s LNG production is already running at maximum and there is no emergency flex capacity that American producers can bring to bear to supply Asia. “There is no short term, immediate thing that the U.S. can do for Asia — there is no pipeline or trucking that can get more gas from here to there,” said the trader, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Last week the Trump administration said it would temporarily allow India to accept Russian oil. India, a larger refiner, also supplies petroleum products like gasoline and diesel fuel to other Asian countries. Asian countries are competing with each other as they try to pivot to other sources of oil and gas. The jockeying is hitting the wall of recent restrictions on output by regional refineries due to the lack of crude oil coming from the Persian Gulf. China could potentially wrangle a short-term easing in supply constraints in Asia if it taps its close ties with Tehran to ensure that China-bound cargoes pass through the Strait of Hormuz unmolested by Iranian forces. Those shipments may already be happening, according to CNBC reporting Tuesday. Trump has spent the past week attempting to cool nerves in the global energy market, as the price of oil has spiked by more than 29 percent since the U.S. and Israel first launched attacks on Iran. “I think you’re going to see great safety. We have decimated that country. They’re paying a big price now,” Trump said Wednesday, responding to a question about whether oil companies should transit the Strait. But Iran has continued to hit ships in the vital waterway. On Wednesday “unknown projectiles” hit and sparked a fire on a Thai cargo vessel in the Strait while two other ships were hit in the nearby Persian Gulf, the New York Times reported. The leaders of G7 countries — which includes Japan — agreed in a call on Wednesday to prepare for future freedom of navigation operations though such efforts are not possible now “as it remains an active theater of war,” according to a French account of the discussion. While the U.S. has been concerned that Iran has begun to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said Wednesday the U.S. believes Iran hasn’t yet done so. He said the U.S. has hit 28 mine-laying ships. Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi will have the chance to raise her concerns and others on the continent when she arrives in Washington next week for a summit with Trump that was planned before the war broke out but has taken on new meaning amid the turmoil. “The president made a decision on Iran without consulting allies, and they’re bearing the brunt of it. So the president obviously needs to appreciate the cost that Japan will bear” when he meets with Takaichi next week, Rahm Emanuel, former U.S. ambassador to Japan, said.

Governments and lobby groups in Italy, Ireland and Hungary are raising concerns over the continuing near-standstill in maritime freight transport in the Strait of Hormuz as the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran escalates. The strait, a major international waterway for oil, gas and fertilizers, has been a no-go zone for a week now, after Iran retaliated against a joint U.S.-Israeli strike and the conflict spilled into the surrounding region. The narrow stretch of water lies partly in Iranian territorial waters. Tehran has said the waterway technically remains open but warned that U.S. and Israeli vessels would be targeted, adding it “cannot guarantee the safety of ships from all countries.” “The attack on Iran has opened a Pandora’s box,” Irish Agriculture Minister Martin Heydon told the Irish Independent, warning that the surge in the price of fertilizers could hit at the worst time of the year, during planting season. The Middle East is also an important market for Irish food and drink exports. Heydon did not rule out government support packages for farms and food producers, but said it is too soon to talk about it. The disruption is also raising concerns in Italy, where the largest farmers’ lobby Coldiretti on Tuesday warned that “the disruption of trade routes linked to the war involving Iran is already causing serious damage to exports.” “The main concern is the markets of the Middle East, where the total value of Italian agri-food exports exceeds €2 billion,” Coldiretti wrote in a press release, adding that particular concern surrounds perishable products like fruits, vegetables or flowers. “The halt in maritime traffic in the Gulf comes at the peak of the flower export season,” added Coldiretti. Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose country goes to the polls next month, announced Monday that Hungary will renew fuel price caps “to protect Hungarian families, Hungarian entrepreneurs and Hungarian farmers” following what he described as an “international oil price explosion.”

Per una buona notizia, ce ne sono almeno due cattive. Non c’è giorno in cui Stellantis possa festeggiare in santa pace. Il gruppo automobilistico franco-italiano controllato da Exor, la holding della famiglia Agnelli-Elkann, brinda per i dati delle vendite di automobili in Europa andando in controtendenza rispetto al mercato. Ma deve fare i conti con un balzo delle elettriche – trascinate dalle cinesi – che hanno ormai raggiunto un quinto del totale delle nuove vetture acquistate nel Vecchio Continente, proprio mentre l’azienda fa marcia indietro su questo tipo di alimentazione e rispolvera addirittura il diesel. E dall’Italia arriva un’altra brutta notizia: come anticipato a fine gennaio da Ilfattoquotidiano.it, la fabbrica di Cassino prolunga lo stop produttivo con un nuovo fermo dal 27 febbraio al 6 marzo per i reparti di lastratura, verniciatura e montaggio. I DATI DELLE VENDITE A gennaio, dati Acea, Stellantis ha venduto 145.750 auto, il 9,1% in più rispetto alle 133.579 piazzate nello stesso mese dello scorso anno. Merito soprattutto dei modelli Fiat, che con 28.992 vetture (+31,3% sullo stesso mese del 2025) scelte dai consumatori diventando il secondo marchio del gruppo dietro Peugeot. La crescita permette al gruppo di raggiungere una quota di mercato del 18,2% (era il 16,1% un anno fa) anche grazie a un arretramento generale delle vendite, calate a 799.625 unità. A gennaio 2026 sono quindi state immatricolate circa 40mila unità in meno delle 831.945 del medesimo mese 2025 (-3,9%). Stellantis dunque va in controcorrente in un momento di difficoltà del mercato europeo, grazie anche ai numeri delle vendite totali in Italia che fanno registrare un incremento del 6,2%: si tratta del miglior risultato tra i grandi mercati del continente, confermando la terza posizione nella classifica europea. LE CATTIVE NOTIZIE Le buone notizie per Stellantis, tuttavia, finiscono qui. Ed è già qualcosa, va detto. Ma se si guarda alle tendenze su larga scala in questo inizio di 2026, non si può far notare come la strategia recentemente varata dall’azienda sembri in netto contrasto con le scelte dei consumatori. L’azienda ha varato una controrivoluzione, tornando a spingere sulle motorizzazioni diesel, carburante eclissatosi dopo il Dieselgate. Contestualmente, l’ad Antonio Filosa ha scelto una frenata sull’elettrico costata 22 miliardi di dollari di oneri finanziari che hanno fatto crollare il titolo sui mercati. Per i manager si tratta di scelte che vanno incontro ai clienti. I dati Acea però raccontano un’impennata delle vendite, seppur a macchia d’olio, delle auto Bev, cioè quelle totalmente elettriche: in Europa – senza considerate mercati piccoli ma ormai totalmente conquistati come la Norvegia – ne sono state immatricolate 154.230, il 24,2 per cento in più delle 124.206 di gennaio 2025. A conti fatti, il 19,3% del totale di vendite: una nuova auto ogni cinque messa su strada in Europa è full electric. Il diesel invece continua ad arretrare (è passato da 83.026 unità a 64.550) e rappresenta appena l’8,1 per cento del market share. E CASSINO NON LAVORA PIÙ Guardando all’Italia, le elettriche continuano a stentare (6,6% del totale) ma hanno comunque raggiunto una quota di mercato identica al diesel. Ne sono state vendute 9.423 a gennaio (erano 6.698, +40,7%) mentre con l’alimentazione che ri-piace a Stellantis sono state immatricolate 10.726 auto (erano 12.792 un anno fa, -16,2%). La strambata voluta dall’amministratore delegato, che il 21 maggio presenterà il nuovo piano industriale, è quindi tutta da verificare. Soprattutto, ci sarà da capire la ricaduta sugli impianti italiani. In tutte le fabbriche ci saranno ammortizzatori sociali almeno fino al termine dell’estate, anche se l’avvio della produzione della 500 ibrida e della Jeep Compass ha portato lievi miglioramenti nei siti di Mirafiori e Melfi, dove si parla del ritorno di un secondo turno di lavoro. Chi vede sempre più nero è invece Cassino, la plant in provincia di Frosinone che ha solo vecchi modelli assegnati e con volumi di vendita ormai marginali. Nelle scorse ore, l’azienda ha comunicato la chiusura dei reparti di montaggio, verniciatura e lastratura fino dal 27 febbraio al 6 marzo. A conti fatti, i dipendenti di Cassino – ammesso che tornino ad assemblare il 7 marzo – avranno lavorato su un unico turno appena 13 nei primi 67 giorni del 2026. La fabbrica è sempre più appena a un filo. L'articolo Stellantis respira: vendite su a inizio anno ma Cassino chiude ancora. E l’azienda spinge il diesel mentre l’elettrico avanza proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

One year after the European Commission launched the Clean Industrial Deal to tackle mounting competitiveness challenges for EU industry, Neste ― the world’s leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel ― is calling for urgent action to deliver on the Commission’s promise of turning “decarbonization into a driver of growth for European industries.” POLITICO Studio spoke to Jenni Männistö, vice president, strategy, M&A and business development at Finland-based Neste, about the company’s investments in the EU, how renewable fuels can be scaled and what they offer the continent’s economic future.  POLITICO Studio: How does the scale-up of renewable fuels strengthen the EU’s competitiveness, and why should the EU prioritize this? Jenni Männistö: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen provided a clear diagnosis when she began her second term in 2024: the world is in a race to develop the technologies that will shape the global economy for decades to come as we move toward climate neutrality. This global race is still on today, and Europe must seize the economic opportunities that clean tech provides amid increasing pressure on traditional fossil markets. One in five European oil refineries has closed since 2009. Going backward and falling economically behind in the global race is not an option. The EU is seeing its competitiveness challenged in some clean tech sectors, but there are also areas where it is a leader, such as biofuels. Our story shows what is possible: Neste has grown from a regional Finnish oil refinery into the global leader in renewable fuels. Forward-looking EU and global policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have helped accelerate innovation and growth. PS: Neste is investing €2.5 billion in expanding its Rotterdam refinery to make it the world’s largest biofuels production facility. What’s needed for more investments of this scale when many businesses are delaying projects or even shutting down sites in the EU? JM: The expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is a major investment. EU refinery and chemical sectors have lacked projects of this scale in recent years. Instead, we have seen new projects cancelled or delayed, all while traditional crude oil refineries close. This is a very concerning trend. To turn the situation around and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and energy security, we need long-term certainty and a strong business case for early movers. And EU businesses should, of course, compete on a level playing field with imports. via Neste PS: Long-term certainty is a common request from businesses, but what’s specifically needed? JM: The first ingredient is long-term certainty about Europe’s commitment to climate neutrality and emissions reduction. The EU’s 2040 climate targets set a clear direction, and their adoption means we can now focus on the policies that get us there. The second ingredient is long-term regulatory certainty. We have a clear framework in place for SAF, for which the ReFuelEU Regulation sets targets until 2050. These targets must remain in place. > We are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF > beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under > the Emission Trading System.” However, other areas are lacking: the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive currently has no transport sector target after 2030. Moreover, the EU Effort Sharing Regulation, which notably includes the national decarbonization objectives for the road sector, provides no visibility beyond 2030. That is a major issue, because biofuels producers cannot make major business and investment decisions based only on one customer segment — aviation — or a short-term regulatory outlook. PS: Why is it important that the EU supports early movers who invest in solutions to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions?   JM: We were pleased with the direction of the Clean Industrial Deal and the EU’s Competitiveness Compass at the start of 2025; it clarified that there needs to be a business case for “clean production” with “lead markets and policies to reward early movers.” These commitments would address some of the big challenges for early movers that we see at Neste. We have invested heavily in expanding SAF production capabilities, but demand is failing to pick up as expected. Once the €2.5 billion expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is completed in 2027, Neste’s SAF production capacity alone could be sufficient to meet the EU’s current 2 percent SAF mandate. Today, we are a year on from the launch of the EU’s flagship competitiveness plans at the start of 2025, but we still need new policies that translate commitments to early movers into action. That is disappointing, and 2026 must be the year when the Commission acts to turn Europe’s early SAF lead into a long-term competitive advantage. That is why we are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under the Emission Trading System. PS: A level playing field is a vital factor; what makes it so crucial? JM: Although Europe currently leads in the scale-up of renewable fuels, other countries and regions are supporting their domestic companies to expand production capacity. This raises major level-playing-field concerns, similar to those we have seen in many other sectors. The EU must align its trade and industrial policies, especially for newly scaling markets. For instance, the EU’s SAF target is just 2 percent until 2030, and other countries and regions are only starting to roll out their own requirements for SAF use. This creates a risk that global SAF volumes end up flowing into the EU. > Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain > geopolitical environment.” In 2025, the European Commission introduced new protective measures on biodiesel imports. In Neste’s view, there should be immediate measures to protect Europe’s biofuels industry as a whole, including SAF production, from unfair competition. The current approach falls short and endangers EU players’ competitiveness, as well as their ability to continue to invest in production capacity and future-proof innovation. PS: There’s a push to revisit and simplify some of the rules agreed during the last Commission, such as the carbon dioxide standards. How do you view this? What’s the balance between renewable fuels and electrification? JM: The approach of the Clean Industrial Deal is the right one — climate action and competitiveness must go hand in hand to deliver a growth strategy for Europe. That is why it is good that we revisit some of the EU rules with these twin objectives in mind. Neste is leading the way with its investment in the Netherlands; we believe that the EU industry can still lead in renewable fuels if we are bold. We need to ask how we can implement policies that cut greenhouse gas emissions and build on Europe’s competitive strengths. With this in mind, it is a step in the right direction to recognize the role of renewable fuels in the legislation on CO2 standards, but their actual and immediate greenhouse gas contribution needs to be better reflected. Electrification plays a role, especially in light-duty vehicles and urban transport, but it is not a silver bullet for the transport sector as a whole. Once EU rules enable a range of low greenhouse gas emission options, users can choose the solutions that best fit their operational needs. PS: There’s also the issue of EU autonomy and energy in an increasingly volatile world. What’s the role of renewable fuels in that context? JM: Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain geopolitical environment. A key priority is diversifying supply; expanding European-produced renewable fuels can reduce our reliance on volatile global markets. In 2023, which is the most recent data available, the EU’s import dependency for oil was nearly 95 percent, underscoring the need to de-risk and diversify. The aim is not to be an island ― EU companies will need global supply chains and partners. Scaling up renewable fuels brings opportunities for new partnerships, such as the pledge by several major countries at COP30 to boost biofuels significantly by 2035. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Neste * The advertisement is linked to is linked to the ReFuelEU and the Clean Industrial Deal. More information here.

Col nuovo anno è scattato il riallineamento delle accise sui carburanti: un incremento di 4,05 centesimi di euro del prezzo del diesel e un analogo decremento per quello della benzina. Secondo un’analisi di Facile.it, realizzata sui dati della Commissione europea aggiornati al 5/1/2026, l’Italia è maglia nera in Europa per il peso di accise e tasse sul prezzo del diesel che ne rappresentano il 59% del totale alla pompa. Ciò significa che, considerando un prezzo medio pari a 1, 644 euro al litro di diesel, poco meno di 1 euro a litro (0,969 euro per la precisione) finisce in accise e IVA. “Sorprende vedere come il prezzo medio per il diesel in Italia, al netto di accise e imposte, sia il terzo più basso d’Europa; ma se aggiungiamo queste due voci – le più alte del Continente – il conto finale schizza e posiziona il Bel Paese tra gli stati UE dove costa di più fare rifornimento di diesel”, spiegano gli esperti di Facile.it. E negli altri paesi europei? Guardando al peso percentuale, dietro di noi si posiziona la Slovenia – dove Iva e accise rappresentano il 57% del prezzo del diesel – seguita da Belgio, Francia e Irlanda (dove la percentuale arriva al 55%). In Germania imposte e accise pesano per il 54% del prezzo alla pompa, mentre nelle posizioni basse della classifica si trovano Svezia e Spagna dove queste voci si fermano al 45% del costo totale. In valori assoluti, secondo le simulazioni di Facile.it (per le quali è stata utilizzata una vettura diesel con consumo medio pari a 5,5 l/100 km), per percorrere 10.000 km con una vettura diesel un automobilista italiano spende di solo accise e IVA, circa 533 euro, un tedesco 494 euro mentre un francese 480 euro. Va decisamente meglio ad un guidatore svedese, che deve mettere a budget 364 euro mentre per uno spagnolo il costo di imposte e accise si ferma ad appena 341 euro, vale a dire il 36% in meno rispetto all’Italia. “Il riallineamento delle accise sui carburanti, di contro, ha portato ad un calo di 4,05 centesimi di euro del prezzo della benzina; una buona notizia, ma solo parziale, poiché, essendo in Italia il consumo di diesel ben più elevato rispetto a quello di benzina, la rimodulazione peserà per oltre 550 milioni di euro sulle tasche dei guidatori”, si legge in una nota ufficiale. Guardando al prezzo medio rilevato dalla Commissione Europea emerge che, nel nostro Paese, è pari a 1,654 euro al litro, di cui 0,971 euro al litro sono rappresentati da accise e imposte (il 59% del prezzo totale, appunto). Senza accise e imposte il prezzo italiano del diesel sarebbe fra i più bassi del continente. L'articolo Diesel, quanto sei caro. Italia maglia nera in Europa per accise e imposte proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Con l’entrata in vigore della nuova legge di Bilancio, dall’1 gennaio scatta l’annunciato riallineamento delle accise. Che sposta il carico fiscale su chi viaggia con macchine a diesel. Il comma 129 della manovra prevede infatti un calo dell’aliquota sulla benzina di 4,05 centesimi al litro e un aumento speculare per quella sul gasolio. Il calcolo finale, però, non si ferma all’accisa: aggiungendo l’Iva, l’impatto reale sui listini sarà di circa 5 centesimi al litro. Secondo le elaborazioni di Staffetta quotidiana, basate sui prezzi medi attuali, si ribalterà la gerarchia ai distributori: il gasolio schizzerà a 1,784 euro/litro, superando la benzina che dovrebbe attestarsi intorno a 1,73 euro/litro. Nonostante Eni abbia ridotto di un centesimo i prezzi consigliati, i dati dell’osservatorio prezzi del Mimit (elaborati su circa 20mila impianti) mostrano un mercato già in fibrillazione. La benzina self si aggira sulla media nazionale di 1,683 euro/litro: le “pompe bianche” (i distributori indipendenti) restano l’unico argine con una media di 1,676 euro. Per quanto riguarda il servito, qui i margini volano: per la benzina 1,827 euro a litro, che diventano 1,868 sotto le insegne delle grandi compagnie. Nei tratti autostradali, la benzina self sfiora già gli 1,78 euro, mentre il servito ha superato la soglia psicologica dei 2 euro al litro. Reggono per ora i carburanti alternativi, con il Gpl servito a 0,688 euro/litro e il metano che segna un lieve calo a 1,394 euro/kg. Si tratta dell’ennesima stangata per i consumatori: le accise e l’Iva pesano su oltre la metà del prezzo del carburante, facendo dell’Italia uno dei Paesi europei con la componente fiscale più alta. Un primato che il governo alla prova dei fatti non ha voluto scalfire. Nonostante le promesse elettorali e il famoso video di Giorgia Meloni che ne chiedeva l’abolizione. L'articolo La manovra fa salire il prezzo del diesel: dall’1 gennaio sarà più caro della benzina proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge di Bilancio 2026-2028, approvata definitivamente dal Parlamento il 30 dicembre 2025, per gli automobilisti italiani si profila un avvio d’anno all’insegna dei rincari. La manovra economica introduce infatti una serie di interventi che incidono direttamente sui costi legati all’uso dell’auto, tra pedaggi autostradali, carburanti e assicurazioni. Il primo capitolo riguarda i pedaggi autostradali. Dal 1° gennaio 2026 scattano aumenti medi pari all’1,5%, in linea con l’inflazione programmata. L’adeguamento interessa molte concessionarie impegnate nell’aggiornamento dei piani economico-finanziari, dopo che una sentenza della Corte Costituzionale ha dichiarato illegittimi i rinvii automatici degli aumenti. Non mancano tuttavia eccezioni: alcune tratte registrano riduzioni o tariffe invariate, come la Ivrea-Torino-Piacenza (-1,35%) o la Concessioni del Tirreno (-6,3%), mentre altre, tra cui quelle gestite da Autostrade per l’Italia, Brescia-Padova e Sat, applicano l’aumento pieno. Sul fronte dei carburanti, la manovra introduce una revisione strutturale delle accise, con l’obiettivo di eliminare le differenze storiche tra benzina e gasolio. Dal nuovo anno l’aliquota viene uniformata a 672,9 euro ogni 1.000 litri per entrambi i prodotti. Questo significa una riduzione dell’accisa sulla benzina di circa 4,05 centesimi al litro (quasi 5 centesimi considerando l’Iva) e, al contrario, un aumento equivalente sul diesel. L’effetto pratico è un rincaro del gasolio alla pompa, che in alcune situazioni potrebbe arrivare a costare più della benzina. La scelta viene motivata dalla necessità di eliminare i cosiddetti sussidi ambientalmente dannosi e di allineare la fiscalità energetica alle indicazioni europee. Un ulteriore impatto riguarda le assicurazioni auto, in particolare le garanzie accessorie abbinate alla RC obbligatoria. La Legge di Bilancio prevede un aumento delle aliquote fiscali: la polizza “Infortuni del conducente” passa da un’imposta del 2,5% al 12,5%, mentre la copertura di “Assistenza stradale” sale dal 10% al 12,5%. Anche in questo caso l’effetto sarà visibile nei premi pagati dagli automobilisti al momento del rinnovo o della stipula di nuovi contratti. Nel complesso, il 2026 si apre con un quadro meno favorevole per chi utilizza l’auto. Un quadro gravato da interventi che, pur inseriti in una strategia di riordino e razionalizzazione delle imposte, si tradurranno in un aumento sensibile dei costi di mobilità per famiglie e pendolari. L'articolo Auto, il 2026 parte in salita. Pedaggi più cari, diesel più costoso e Rc in aumento proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.