BRUSSELS — The EU will begin to ban all Russian gas imports to the bloc early next year after lawmakers, officials and diplomatic negotiators struck a last-minute deal over a key piece of legislation set to reshape Europe’s energy sector. Put forward over the summer, the bill is designed to kill off the EU’s lingering Russian energy dependency at a critical juncture in the Ukraine war, with Russia advancing steadily and Kyiv fast running out of cash. While Europe’s imports of Russian gas have fallen sharply since 2022, the country still accounts for around 19 percent of its total intake. The EU is already set to sanction Russian gas imports, but those measures are temporary and subject to renewal every six months. The new legislation is designed to make that rupture permanent and put member countries that still operate contracts with Russia on a surer footing in the event of legal action. “We were paying to Russia €12 billion per month at the beginning of the war for fossil fuels. Now we’re down to €1.5 billion per month … We aim to bring it down to zero,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on Wednesday. “This is a good day for Europe and for our independence from Russian fossil fuels — this is how we make Europe resilient.” “We wanted to show that Europe will never go back to Russian fossil fuels again — and the only ones who lost today are Russia and Mr Putin,” Green MEP Ville Niinistö, one of the Parliament’s two lead negotiators on the file, told POLITICO. The law will enter into force on Jan. 1 next year and then apply to different kinds of gas in phases. Spot market purchases of gas will be banned almost immediately, while existing short- and long-term contracts will be banned in 2026 and 2027. A prohibition on pipeline gas will come into effect in September 2027, owing to concerns from landlocked countries reliant on Russian gas, such as Slovakia and Hungary. Finalized in barely six months, the law was the subject of fierce disagreements in recent weeks as the European Parliament’s more ambitious stance irked member countries concerned about the legal risks and technical difficulties of the ban. But despite fears that talks would be prolonged and even spill over into the new year, negotiators reached a compromise on key aspects of the law at the last minute. Now both sides can claim victory. Lawmakers, for instance, repeatedly pushed for an earlier timeline and ultimately ensured that none of the bans would enter into force later than 2027. The Parliament also secured commitments from national capitals to impose one of three penalties on companies that breach the rule: a lump sum penalty of €40 million, 3.5 percent of a company’s annual turnover, or 300 percent of the value of the offending transaction. Where the Council included its demands, the Parliament was able to water them down. For instance, lawmakers convinced member countries to tighten a controversial clause allowing countries facing energy crises to lift the ban — suspensions will only last four weeks at a time and will need to be reviewed by Parliament and the Commission. The Parliament also backed down from a push for a parallel ban on Russian crude imports in the same file after the Commission promised a separate bill early next year, as first reported by POLITICO. The Council did push through its controversial list of “safe” countries from which the EU can still import gas without rigorous vetting. Lawmakers complained that the list includes Qatar, Algeria and Nigeria, but have now accepted it, so long as countries can be excised from the list if they offend. MEPs gushed that they got far more than they expected and weren’t trampled by seasoned diplomats, as some had feared. “We have strengthened the European Commission’s initial proposal by introducing a pathway towards a ban on oil and its products, ending long-term contracts sooner than originally proposed, and secured harmonized EU penalties for non-compliance,” European People’s Party MEP Inese Vaidere, who also led the file, told POLITICO. “We achieved more than my realistic landing scenario — earlier phase-outs, tougher penalties, and closing the loopholes that let Russian gas sneak in,” said Niinistö. “This was about proving European unity — Parliament, Council and Commission on the same side — and showing citizens that we can cut Russia’s revenues faster and more decisively than ever proposed before.”

When you live at the crossroads of East and West, energy is never just about electricity or gas. In the Republic of Moldova, high-voltage lines and pipelines have always carried more than power — they have carried geopolitics. For decades, this small country wedged between Romania and Ukraine found itself trapped in a web of vulnerabilities: dependent on Russian gas, tied to Soviet-era infrastructure and reliant on energy supplies from the breakaway Transnistrian region. Energy was less a utility than a lever of political blackmail.         And yet, in just a few years, Moldova has begun to flip the script. What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         A turning point in the crisis         The breaking point came in October 2021, when Gazprom slashed deliveries, prices exploded and Chișinău suddenly found itself staring at an energy abyss. Electricity was supplied almost entirely from the MGRES plant in Transnistria, itself hostage to Kremlin influence. By 2022 the situation worsened: gas supplies were halted altogether, MGRES cut the lights on the right bank of the Dniester and Moldova teetered on the edge of a blackout.         With coordinated support from the European Union — which helped Moldova overcome the crises, cushion the impact on consumers hit by soaring prices and committed further backing through instruments such as the Growth Plan for the Republic of Moldova — the country managed to stabilize the situation.              For many countries, such a crisis would have spelled capitulation. For Moldova, it became the start of something different: a choice between survival within the old dependency or a leap toward reinvention. > What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project > of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         Reinvention with a European compass         Under a unified Pro-European leadership — President Maia Sandu, Prime Minister Dorin Recean and Energy Minister Dorin Junghietu — Moldova has embraced the latter path. In 2023 the Ministry of Energy was created not as another bureaucratic silo, but as an engine of transformation.         The strategy was clear: diversify supply, integrate with the European grid, liberalize markets and accelerate the green transition. Within months, JSC Energocom — the newly empowered state supplier — was sourcing natural gas from more than ten European partners via the Trans-Balkan corridor. Strategic reserves were secured in Romania and Ukraine. For the first time, Moldova was no longer hostage to a single supplier.         In 2024 Moldova joined the Vertical Gas Corridor linking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine — a symbolic and practical step toward embedding itself into Europe’s energy arteries. On the electricity side, synchronization with ENTSO-E, the European grid, in March 2022 allowed direct imports from Romania. The Vulcănești–Chișinău transmission line, to be completed this year, alongside the Bălți–Suceava interconnection in tender procedures, ensures Moldova’s future is wired into Europe, not into its separatist past. Since 2025 the right bank of the Dniester has no longer bought electricity from Transnistria.         Accelerated legislative reform         None of Moldova’s progress would have been possible without shock therapy in legislation. The country rewrote its gas law to enforce mandatory storage of 15 percent of annual consumption, guarantee public service obligations, open its markets to competition, and shield vulnerable consumers. In parallel, it adopted EU rules on wholesale market transparency and trading integrity, aligning itself not only in practice but also in law with European standards, a pace of change that has been repeatedly underscored by the Energy Community Secretariat in its annual Implementation Reports, which recognized Moldova as the front-runner in the Community in 2024.         But perhaps the most striking step was political: Moldova became the first country in Europe to renounce Russian energy resources entirely. A government decision spelled it out clearly: “the funds are intended to ensure the resilience and energy independence of the Republic of Moldova, including the complete elimination of any form of dependence on the supply of energy resources from the Russian Federation.”         Junghietu, Moldova’s energy minister, has been blunt about what this meant. “Moldova no longer wants to pay a political price for energy resources — a price that has been immense over the past 30 years. It held back our economic development and kept us prisoners of empty promises.” The new strategy is built on diversification, transparency and competition. As Junghietu put it: “The economy must become robust, so that it is competitive, with prices determined by supply and demand.”         This combination of structural reform and political clarity marked a definitive break with the past — and a foundation for Moldova’s European energy future.         The green transition: from ambition to action         The reforms went beyond emergency fixes. They set the stage for a green transformation. By amending renewables legislation, the government committed to 27 percent renewable energy in total consumption by 2030, with 30 percent in the electricity mix.         The results are visible: tenders for 165 MW of renewable capacity have been launched and contracted and a net billing mechanism was introduced, boosting the number of prosumers. In April 2025 more than a third of Moldova’s electricity already came from local renewables. The ministry has also supported the development of energy communities, biofuels and pilot projects for energy efficiency. The green transition is no longer a slogan — but a growing reality.         More than energy policy — a political project         Digitalization, too, is reshaping the sector. With support from UN Development Programme and the Italian government, 35,000 smart meters are already in place, with a goal to reach 100,000 by 2027. These are not just gadgets — they cut losses, enable real-time monitoring and give consumers more control. Meanwhile, ‘sandbox’ regimes for energy innovators, digital platforms for price comparison and streamlined supplier switching are dragging Moldova’s energy sector into the 21st century.       These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory. By transposing the EU’s Third and Fourth Energy Packages, adopting the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan, and actively engaging in European platforms, with technical support from the Energy Community Secretariat that helped authorities navigate these challenges, Chișinău is demonstrating that integration is not just a diplomatic aspiration — it is a lived reality.         Partnerships with Romania have been central. The 2023 energy memorandum, joint infrastructure projects, and cross-border storage and balancing initiatives have anchored Moldova firmly in the European family. Step by step, the country has become not only a consumer but also a credible partner in the European energy market. > These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy > independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory.         Lessons from crisis         The energy crises of 2021-22 were existential. Moldova was threatened with supply cuts, social unrest and economic collapse. But the government’s response was coordinated, strategic and unusually bold for a country long accustomed to living under the shadow of dependency.         New laws harmonized tariffs, enforced supplier storage obligations and put in place shields for vulnerable households. The Ministry of Energy proved capable of anticipating risks and managing them. Moldova ceased being reactive — and started planning.         Of course, challenges remain. Interconnections with Romania must be further expanded, balancing capacity for the electricity grid is still limited and investment in efficiency has only begun. But today, Moldova has a coherent plan, a competent team and an irreversible direction.         A change of mindset         Perhaps the most profound transformation has been cultural. Chișinău’s energy ministry has evolved from crisis responder to a forward-looking body linking European market realities with citizens’ daily needs. Its teams are now engaging with both the complexities of European energy markets and the practical concerns of Moldovan households. Decisions are increasingly data-driven, communication is transparent, and cooperation with private actors and international partners has become routine.         This institutional maturity is crucial for Moldova’s EU path. Integration is not only about harmonizing legislation but also about building trust, credibility and resilience. Energy has become the showcase — the sector that proves Moldova can implement European rules, innovate and deliver. > Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, > social protection and regional development.         A model in the making         In a region where instability remains the norm, Moldova is beginning to stand out as a model of resilience. Its reforms — synchronization with ENTSO-E, participation in the Vertical Gas Corridor, expansion of renewables and rapid digitalization — are being watched across the Eastern Partnership. Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, social protection and regional development.         What was once a weapon turned against Moldova has been reimagined as a shield. Energy, long the Achilles’ heel of this fragile state, has become its spearhead into Europe.          Moldova’s journey is far from complete. But one thing is already clear: its European future is no longer a promise. It is under construction, one kilowatt at a time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Daniel Apostol is an economic analyst, first vice president of the Association for Economic and Social Studies and Forecasts (ASPES), and CEO of the Federation of Energy Employers of Romania. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its content represents the sole responsibility of the MEIR project, financed by the European Union. The content of the publication belongs to the authors and does not necessarily reflect the vision of the European Union.

Mr. Marcin Laskowski | via PGE The European Union finds itself navigating an era of extraordinary challenges. From defending our shared values against authoritarian aggression to preserving unity in the face of shifting geopolitical landscapes, the EU is once again being tested. Covid-19, the energy crisis, the full-scale Russian war against Ukraine and renewed strains in international relations have taught us a simple lesson: a strong Europe needs capable leaders, resilient institutions and, above all, stable yet flexible financial frameworks. The debate on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is therefore not only about figures. It is, fundamentally, a debate about Europe’s security, resilience and its future. From the perspective of the power sector, the stakes are particularly high. Electricity operators live every day with the consequences of EU regulation, carrying both the costs of compliance and the opportunities of EU investment support. Data confirms that European funds channeled into the electricity sector generate immense value for the EU economy and consumers alike. Why? Because electrification is the backbone of Europe’s industrial transformation. The Clean Industrial Deal makes it clear: within a few short years, Europe must raise the electrification rate of its economy by 50 percent — from today’s 21.3 percent to 32 percent by 2030. That means the future of sectors as diverse as chemicals, steel, food processing and high-tech manufacturing is, in reality, a debate about electrification. If this transition is not cost-effective, Europe risks eroding its global competitiveness rather than strengthening it. > That means the future of sectors as diverse as chemicals, steel, food > processing and high-tech manufacturing is, in reality, a debate about > electrification. Electrification is also central to REPowerEU — Europe’s pledge to eliminate dependence on Russian fossil fuels. It is worth recalling that in 2024 the EU still paid more to Russia for oil and gas (€21 billion) than it provided in financial support to Ukraine (€19 billion). Only a massive scale-up of clean, domestic electricity can reverse this imbalance once and for all. But this requires a fresh approach. For too long, the power sector has been seen only through the lens of its own transition. Yet without power sector, no other sector will decarbonize successfully. Already today, electricity accounts for 30 percent of EU emissions but has delivered 75 percent of the reductions achieved from the Emissions Trading Scheme. As electrification accelerates, the sector — heavily reliant on weather-dependent renewables — faces growing costs in ensuring security of supply and system stability. This is why investments must also focus on infrastructure that directly enhances security and resilience, including dual-use solutions such as underground cabling of electricity distribution grids, mobile universal power supply systems for high/medium/low voltage, and advanced cyber protection. These are not luxuries, but prerequisites for a power system capable of withstanding shocks, whether geopolitical, climatic or digital. > For too long, the power sector has been seen only through the lens of its own > transition. Yet without power sector, no other sector will decarbonize > successfully. The European Commission estimates that annual investment needs in the power sector will reach €311 billion from 2031— nearly ten times more than the needs of industry sector. This is an unavoidable reality. The critical question is how to mobilize this capital in a way that is least burdensome for citizens and businesses. If mishandled, it could undermine Europe’s industrial competitiveness, growth and jobs. The MFF alone cannot deliver this transformation. Yet it can, and must, be a vital part of the solution. The European Parliament rightly underlined that completing the Energy Union and upgrading energy infrastructure requires continued EU-level financing. In its July proposal, the Commission earmarked 35 percent of the next budget — about €700 billion — for climate and environmental action. These funds must be allocated in a technology-neutral way, systematically covering generation, transmission, distribution and storage. Public-good investments such as power grids — especially local and regional distribution networks — should be treated as a top priority, enabling small and medium-sized enterprises and households to deploy renewables, access affordable energy and reduce energy poverty. > The debate is not only about money, it is also about the way it is spent. The debate is not only about money, it is also about the way it is spent.  A cautious approach is needed to the “money for reforms” mechanism. EU funds for energy transition must not be judged through unrelated conditions. Support for investments in energy projects must not be held hostage to reforms not linked to energy or climate. This caution should also apply to extending the “do no significant harm” principle to areas outside the scope of the Taxonomy Regulation, where it risks adding unnecessary complexity, administrative burden and uncertainty. The focus must remain firmly on delivering the infrastructure and investments needed for decarbonization and security. Moreover, EU budget rules must align with state aid frameworks, particularly the General Block Exemption Regulation, and reflect the long lead times required for power sector investments. At the same time, Europe cannot afford to lose public trust. The green transition will not succeed if imposed against citizens; it must be built with them. Europe needs more carrots, not more sticks. The next EU budget, therefore, must be more than a financial plan. It must be a strategic instrument to strengthen resilience, sovereignty and competitiveness, anchored in the electrification of Europe’s economy. Without it, we risk not only missing our climate targets but also undermining the very security and unity that the EU exists to defend.

COPENHAGEN — Connie Hedegaard remembers when climate was Europe’s great unifier. More than a decade ago, as the EU’s first climate commissioner, she helped turn carbon policy into a pillar of Brussels’ power and a point of pride for the bloc. But with southern Europe now burning and Brussels pivoting to a new mantra of security and competitiveness, she worries the tide is turning — with dire ramifications. “When people lose their homes or their families to extreme weather, they don’t just suffer loss, they also lose trust in decision-makers,” Hedegaard told POLITICO on the sidelines of an organic farming summit. “That mistrust is what feeds polarization.” And she didn’t mince words about the industry giants and other actors she says are responsible for stalling progress. “I remember when BP called itself ‘Beyond Petroleum,’” she said, citing the giant British oil firm. “Now they are backtracking. They should be ashamed of themselves.”  The warning by the Danish national, who led the European Commission’s newly established climate wing between 2010 and 2014, comes more than a year after far-right parties surged in the European election, capitalizing on voter anger over inflation and green rules.  Eight months into Ursula von der Leyen’s second term atop the Commission, her ambitious Green Deal climate and environmental agenda has become a political punching bag, with national governments pushing for looser targets and industry lobbying to slow the pace of change. But Hedegaard argued that treating the Green Deal as a burden in tough times is a dangerous miscalculation.  “For Europe, climate and security are interlinked. I think most people can see it when they look at our energy dependency and the need for transformation of our energy systems,” she said. “If policymakers fail to act, they risk fueling the very populism they claim to fear.” CLIMATE REALITY From last year’s “monster” floods in Spain to this summer’s fires in Cyprus and southern France, climate disasters have battered Europe with increased scale and frequency. In Scandinavia, July’s record-breaking heat left hospitals overwhelmed and even drove reindeer into cities in search of shade. The European Environment Agency estimates such disasters have already cost the continent nearly half a trillion euros over the past four decades. In Scandinavia, July’s record-breaking heat left hospitals overwhelmed and even drove reindeer into cities in search of shade. | Jouni Porsanger/Lehtikuva/AFP via Getty Images Hedegaard is no stranger to political battles. A former Danish minister and longtime center-right politician, she cut her teeth in Copenhagen before moving to Brussels in 2010. Remembered in EU corridors for her direct and conversational style, honed by an early career as a journalist, Hedegaard is blunt in her assessments. Her pointed attack on BP, for instance, comes after the company scaled back its renewable energy investments while raising annual spending on oil and gas — reversing the climate pledges the firm once trumpeted. BP did not respond to a request for comment. Hedegaard’s remarks also come as climate lawsuits mount around the world. Last month, the International Court of Justice ruled that governments can be held legally responsible for failing to act on climate change, a decision that could also embolden challenges against corporations. Since leaving Brussels, Hedegaard has taken on several roles in climate policy and sustainability, including chairing the European Climate Foundation. But her post-EU career has not been without controversy. In 2016, she joined Volkswagen’s new Sustainability Council, a move critics said risked greenwashing in the wake of the carmaker’s emission-cheating Dieselgate scandal. She defended the role as unpaid and aimed at pushing the company to clean up its act. For von der Leyen, Hedegaard has an unvarnished message: Don’t blink. “She has stood firm so far. She must continue to do that,” she said of the EU executive president. Hedegaard also warned that Europe can’t afford to stall while China pours billions into climate-friendly technology. “If Europe hesitates while others go full speed, we risk losing the industries of the future,” she said. A climate pact with Beijing last month was hailed as a diplomatic win, but underscored how cooperation is increasingly entangled with rivalry over who will dominate the supply chain. Closer to home, Hedegaard pointed to farming as one of the EU’s most immediate levers. She argued that the Common Agricultural Policy, which consumes around a third of the EU budget, could be used more forcefully to drive the green transition while cutting red tape for the smallest farmers. “It takes courage,” she said, “but agriculture is one of the sectors where we actually have the tools to act.” “This is not the time to hesitate or foot-drag,” she added. “It is time to deliver.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Wer regiert die Welt – und was treibt sie an? In unserem Sommer-Spezial geht es um die mächtigsten und umstrittensten Politikerinnen und Politiker unserer Zeit. Wir zeigen, wie sie denken, entscheiden – und was das für uns bedeutet. Ein Politiker pro Tag, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen der Macht. In der Machthaber-Serie: 04.08.2025 – Wladimir Putin 05.08.2025 – Marine Le Pen 06.08.2025 – Javier Milei 07.08.2025 – Xi Jinping 08.08.2025 – Giorgia Meloni 11.08.2025 – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan 12.08.2025 – Benjamin Netanjahu 13.08.2025 – Narendra Modi 14.08.2025 – Friedrich Merz 15.08.2025 – Mohammed bin Salman 16.08.2025 – Ursula von der Leyen Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

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.”

Brussels says it struck the best trade deal it could with Washington — even if Paris and other European capitals aren’t buying it.  In a last-ditch effort to fend off Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs on most EU goods to 30 percent on Aug. 1, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday flew with her negotiating team to the U.S. president’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland and, in about an hour, locked down a preliminary deal.  “This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,” EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said Monday.  The deal, which imposes a 15 percent tariff on most imports from the EU, “saves trade flows, saves the jobs in Europe” and “opens a new chapter in EU-U.S. relations,” he told reporters.  “It’s not only about … trade: It’s about security, it is about Ukraine, it is about current geopolitical volatility,” said Šefčovič, indicating that guaranteeing Washington’s continued military support for Ukraine and NATO played a central part in the negotiations — and in pushing Brussels to clinch a deal. But while the EU executive hails the mere fact of sealing a deal a success, that didn’t satisfy some EU heavyweights like France and industry lobbies, which accused Brussels of giving in too easily to Trump’s demands. Unlike German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who were quick to welcome the deal, French President Emmanuel Macron has remained silent. His Prime Minister François Bayrou, meanwhile, slammed the accord as an act of “submission” to Washington. Germany’s main industry lobby BDI said it sent “a fatal sign” regarding the future of transatlantic trade. In France, big-business group Medef said the outcome demonstrates that the EU still struggles to win respect, while the country’s confederation of small- and medium-sized enterprises said the deal will have a “disastrous impact.”  “The lesson of this agreement: We are an economic giant but a political dwarf,” said Valerie Heyer, leader of the liberal Renew group in the European Parliament, joining the chorus of disapproval from French politicians. AS GOOD AS IT GETS?  “It was heavy lifting we had to do,” von der Leyen said after her meeting with Trump on Sunday evening. “But now we made it.” Yes, the EU made it — but at a significant political and economic price that some regard as too high. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni were quick to welcome the deal. | Angelo Carconi/EPA “Trump has won, there’s no question about that,” Bernd Lange, a German Social Democrat who chairs the trade committee in the European Parliament, told POLITICO.  As part of the deal, Brussels not only agreed to lower its tariffs to zero on some U.S. imports such as cars, but also committed to purchase $750 billion worth of energy and to invest $600 billion more than planned in the U.S.  What’s more, the provisional agreement — which isn’t legally binding and still has to be locked in through a joint statement, to be published ahead of Aug. 1 — leaves a host of points open, giving Trump wiggle room to change his mind further down the line.  The Commission has, for instance, been reassured that sectors that are currently undergoing separate investigations in the U.S. and might soon face sectoral tariffs, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, won’t face a tariff higher than 15 percent. But there’s no legal guarantee of that.  Steel and aluminum will remain subject to 50 percent tariffs after both sides committed to work together to create a ring fence to address global overcapacity.  David Kleimann, a senior trade expert at the ODI think tank in Brussels, called the deal a “clear-cut political defeat for the EU.”  “The optics of an EU Commission president surrendering to a U.S. President Trump may have lasting effects on the identification of the Union’s citizens with the supranational project,” he added.  NO GUN ON THE TABLE Throughout the lengthy negotiation process France has played the role of the bad cop, accusing the Commission of being too weak and calling on Brussels to resort to heavier trade weapons including its trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument. The European Commission won approval from national capitals to prepare and eventually strike back with retaliatory tariffs hitting nearly €100 billion in U.S. goods, and to look into readying the instrument — which could be used to target services or restrict access to public procurement tenders.   But it never resorted to using those tools, even after Trump escalated the standoff earlier this month by threatening to jack up tariffs if no deal were done by Aug. 1. EU countries repeatedly shied away from giving the Commission a mandate to get tougher. Prime Minister François Bayrou slammed the accord as an act of “submission” to Washington. | Mohammed Badra/EPA “There has not been a united front of member countries calling for confrontation over the past days,” said Elvire Fabry, a trade expert at the Jacques Delors Institute in Paris. That’s why Brussels was never able to go beyond threatening to deploy the Anti-Coercion Instrument.  And, as Šefčovič acknowledged, Brussels has to think very hard before launching a full-scale trade war with an ally it relies on for its security and energy. “There is a dependence on U.S. security guarantees on Ukraine and energy dependency which limits the EU’s ability to confront the U.S.,” Fabry said.  Antonia Zimmermann reported from Brussels and Giorgio Leali reported from Paris. Oliver Noyan and Romanus Otte contributed reporting from Berlin.