Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsJüri Ratas
First, cutting red burden, not substance. We significantly simplify the environmental management system requirements under Article 14a, remove duplicated or outdated obligations like the underused REACH substances database, and allow greater flexibility in implementation timelines. This matters most for small and medium companies. The environmental objectives themselves are fully preserved. Second, legal certainty and predictability.
We clarify how best available techniques provision apply and build a more operational transparent framework for derogations. The centerpiece is a presumption of disproportionality between compliance cost and environment benefit under Article 15.5. This is not invented from scratch. The presumption threshold mirrors the approach already established under the Net-Zero Industry Act, so we are ensuring coherence across Union law, not creating a new precedent. Consistency is exactly what gives investors and operators a stable, predictable environment.
And lastly, third, flexibility for the transition, enabling hydrogen and oxy-fuel process, aligning IED scope with the ETS Directive, and extending permit intervals. Let me be clear about what this opinion is not. This is not deregulation, but conclusion remain the reference standards, emission limit values remain in place, the core environmental objectives of this regulation are untouched. What we remove is duplication, unusable database, and not the protection.
This is balanced opinion, simplification, flexibility and legal clarity without sacrificing ambition. It makes environmental legislation more adapted to economic and technological realities. Of course, I ask your support and I would like to say thank you all the colleagues who worked together. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, rapporteur, for all information. And as you know, we've got the compromise amendment one and if adopted, the compromise amendment two and all amendments fall. So first, we will vote on compromise amendment number one and it will be the roll call vote requested by EPP and S&D, Renew and the Greens. So the vote is open. The vote is closed and it is adopted.
Thank you and congratulations, Yuri. And then we will go to the item seven. Oh, no, I'm sorry, too fast. Of course, the final vote and it will be also the roll call vote. So the vote is open.
The vote is closed and it is adopted. So now congratulations to the rapporteur. And now item seven, adoption of draft opinion on letter form to ENVI motion for resolution and it will be the roll call vote. So the vote is open. The vote is closed and it is adopted.
Thanks a lot. Item eight. The vote is closed and it is adopted. Item nine, adoption of draft recommendation, Paolo Borchia is the rapporteur. So it is the roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. It's been adopted. Congratulations. The item ten, it will start in fifteen minutes.
And I invite you to stay here because it will be the exchange of views with Teresa Ribera. So fifteen minutes break and sharply at ten thirty.
Dear colleagues, we start our item 10, exchanging of views with Teresa Ribera. So first, I'd like to welcome Mrs. Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, to this exchange of views. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation. And just some information, as you know, we've got approximately one hour for this discussion, and it will be conducted in accordance with the speaker list. And I invite all members who want to take the floor under catch-the-eye to put their nameplates vertically in their holders.
And if time permits, I will give the floor. But first, I just to remind everyone to please stick to the allotted time. And first, I give the floor to our guest, Mrs. Ribera, for 10 minutes to make her opening statement.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you. Thank you so much chair and honorable members of the Parliament. Good morning and thanks a lot for inviting me to join you today in this very last week before the summer break. A little bit more than a year ago we came up with a simple conviction being reflected in the Clean Industrial Deal. Our conviction is that CleanTech, decarbonization, competitiveness are two sides of the same coin.
So it is not one or the other but how we can manage in a smart way so to reduce the difficulties, the challenges and to invest, to deploy, to ensure that we profit the opportunities. Because we are a manufacturing continent and we want to keep it that way. And the next big opportunity for our Europe is clean, CleanTech, clean energy and a decarbonized industry. And changing for the traditional pattern to a much more efficient use of resources to a one that boosts CleanTech opportunities takes an effort. But we can do it together.
We think that our single market, 450 million consumers, 23 million companies, 17% of global GDP help us in the pole position to succeed in the edge of electricity. We can already see it in the data. CleanTech delivered 30% of our GDP growth in recent years with annual exports representing 80 billion euros and its value chains employing more than 4 million people. We are also the best place to innovate and build the solutions of tomorrow. We count on the infrastructure, on the skills, on the research centers capacity.
Just a few days ago one of our fusion startups Proxima Fusion secured a record breaking funding round, 411 million euros, underscoring the trust that investors have in Europe. But our industrial model cannot succeed against nature and climate. On the contrary, the data tell one clear story. Losses are mounting. Prices are raising.
Resources are becoming scarcer. So we need to ensure that we foresee, that we identify the best avenues to prevent that harm. Our competitiveness is being challenged by those pulling ahead in the CleanTech race. And ultimately the viability of our industrial model is at stake. And we want a success, not a failure.
Think about what the insurance and reinsurance companies tell us on what it is happening. Allianz Research has found that if this trend continues we may be facing GDP losses reaching between 5 and 7% by the end of the decade. It is mid-July in Brussels and we have already experienced two heatwaves this year. Europe is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. And we know that this is not just a thing dealing with being more or less comfortable.
Our trend systems do not work. Our railways melt. The electricity capacity does not work.
The hospitals are being really crowded or overwhelmed. So, we know that without decisive action, climate change itself could become the largest GDP killer. The Middle East conflict has exposed once again how vulnerable our economy is to fossil fuel prices. That dependence cost us an additional 50 billion euros in fossil fuel spending in the first 111 days of the Iran conflict alone. Fossil fuels are not just a climate cost, which they are.
They are huge economic and strategic vulnerability. And this is why thriving, building, succeeding, implementing the Clean Industrial Deal is so important. We have set out a comprehensive framework to tackle these vulnerabilities and renew our economic structure proposing concrete actions. Achieving our objectives requires an unprecedented level of investments. This is also a great opportunity to transform, to invest, to thrive in our economy, in our industrial model.
So let me be direct. We need to put our money where our mouth is. State aid is one part of the answer. Public support has an important role to play in mobilizing this investment, particularly where market failures, high upfront costs or investment risks continue to hold projects back or slowing down the level of transformation. This is what governments say to us.
They want to back our companies. But it is our role to ensure that the level playing field remains, that there are no overcompensations happening. This is why we put forward CISAF, our Clean Industrial State Aid Framework, as an important enabler of Europe's clean transition. It is delivering. In just one year of application of CISAF, we have already approved 30 measures coming from 15 member states, mobilizing a very important budget, beyond 120 billion euros.
It is a strong signal that member states are ready to invest at scale, translating policy ambition into concrete investment, backing, supporting, upholding companies to update the way they produce. But let's be very honest. Public funding is not the one that can cope with this transformation. It can help, but it will never be sufficient, not even effective or fair manner to support, to finance the clean transition. IPCEIs and CISAF are good instruments, but think about one Europe, one market.
This means we must address the issue at the continental level. This means that working together can be much more effective than working each one on our corner. We are starting to see this happening. The upcoming ETS review setting up the Industrial Decarbonisation Bank and Investment Booster can help into this exercise. Or the next MFF with the Competitiveness Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility, where we propose to multiply grid financing by five compared to the current framework.
The real test lies ahead of us. The MFF and the question of Union-wide financing solutions will decide whether we are willing to give ourselves the means of our ambitions.
the capacity to attract, to appeal investors to invest in our continent. Deeper and more integrated capital markets matter. It would channel Europe's savings towards Europe's future. It would reduce our dependence on external sources of capital. Are we ready to compete?
Are we ready to take a step forward in sovereignty? Some Member States are already putting ideas on the table. Let's think how we can frame this. As regards to energy, on electrification, we have been too slow and done too little, even if we have done a lot. But that's the main message coming from the International Energy Agency.
We have a great potential of electrification and it is still far too low, and we are paying for it. Our electrification rate has been stagnating at around 23% for over a decade, while competitors like China race ahead. We need to move faster, and we can do it. Renewables now meet almost 50% of Europe's power generation, and they continue to grow. But this progress will soon hit a ceiling if it is not accompanied by electrified demand and grid deployment.
That is why we have proposed the European Grids Package, introducing key elements in terms of Union-wide planning, faster permitting, resilience and financing. This committee has a very central role in consolidating that progress that in many occasions will have to come hand in hand with the digital and smart use of the infrastructure. I would, if you allow me, encourage this Parliament to defend the ambitious proposals in trilogue and adopt it promptly, as soon as possible, the sooner the better. NZIA and the Grids Package are only two of a number of initiatives we have delivered from the Commission. There are many others, like the Industrial Accelerator Act or the amendments to the Critical Raw Materials Act, that can be part of a coherent strategy, and I thank this committee for all the work that you have been deploying in these files.
Still this week, we will be putting forward important proposals that I am sure you are anticipating eagerly: the ETS review and the Electrification Action Plan. The ETS review will update the most important climate policy instrument we have. It will have two legs. First, large-scale investment support and pragmatic flexibilities to help industry leap forward. Second, strong and predictable price signals that ensures there is a business case for climate-neutral industry in Europe.
The Electrification Action Plan we will present on Friday lifts the barriers holding electrification back. It concentrates the efforts on the demand side. The Action Plan will be completed by a legislative proposal on future-proof electricity bills, to make electricity the default competitive option, acting on taxation and network charges. I opened this preliminary statement with Europe being a manufacturing continent and how competitiveness and decarbonisation are mutually reinforcing. There is no point in looking back.
We need to double down on the energy transition and make it our growth engine for this new era. Our progress so far shows that we can set Europe on the right path. We have the strengths, the capacities, the skills.
But delivery depends on many different players, including this very important committee and on the choices you may make in the months ahead. I look forward to your questions and to working with you to get this right. Thanks a lot.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now it will be time for coordinators or representatives of groups. And I just inform that it is strictly 90 seconds and then it will be direct answer from the Commissioner. So, and if time permits, 30 seconds for the follow-up question. So first, EPP and Wouter Beke, the floor is yours.
Wouter Beke
Thank you, Vice-President, for being here today. And I believe that except from the extremes, we all support the objectives of the Clean Industrial Deal. But delivering on them will require massive investments, especially in industry and energy infrastructure. Put your money where your mouth is, was what you were saying. We are talking about investment in decarbonisation of industry, a CO2 backbone, electricity grids, hydrogen and gas infrastructure.
But if we are serious about decarbonisation, strategic autonomy and economic resilience, our industry and energy systems must be able to modernize. But modernization requires investments and investments require permits. Yet too many of these investments are delayed, scaled down or abandoned because the necessary permits cannot be obtained. Project remains blocked, even when they are essential for European's competitiveness and decarbonisation. The permitting provisions in the Net-Zero Industry Act and in the Industrial Acceleration Act are welcome, of course.
And so are the ongoing stress test of the Habitat Directive and the consultation on the Water Framework Directive. But these initiatives still focus mainly on procedures, timelines and streamlining. They do not sufficiently address the underlying legal constraints, the highly restrictive case law and the real root causes of the problem, most of which stem from European environmental legislation. So my question is very concrete: will the Commission propose a genuine permitting omnibus that address the root causes in both existing and new legislation so that the investment needed for the Clean Industrial Deal can actually obtain a permit? Thank you.
Thank you.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you so much. I think that this is a key aspect and it is a key aspect that is not always simple because we need to address this in a balanced manner and in many occasions it depends also on the nation-state decisions on how to deploy their permitting system. But what we have tried to do as Commission is to come up with a proposal for a regulation on speeding up environmental assessment that aims at accelerating and simplifying these procedures in an horizontal manner. Single points of contact, digital portals, shorter deadlines. Discussions on these proposals are ongoing and we stand ready to work with the co-legislators.
But as I said, let's do remind ourselves that on one side we need to prevent any damage that cannot be tackled and on the other side we also need to work seriously with the member states so that gold-plating does not make things more difficult at the national scale. Thank you.
Dan Nica
Vă mulțumesc doamnei vicepreședinte Teresa Ribera. Mulțumesc pentru efortul făcut în acest proces de decarbonizare și aș vrea să vă întreb câteva lucruri. 1: noi lucrăm la acest plan de electrificare în toate componentele care le-ați menționat.
Dar ați menționat că Europa este sau trebuie să fie o piață unică. În aceleași zile când în vestul Europei prețul pe la energie este de minus 500 de euro megawatt oră, în România este plus 1000 de euro megawatt oră. Cum acest lucru ar putea fi interpretat ca o piață unică, cu toate cauzele care au fost identificate și de către Comisia Europeană și de către noi: lipsa interconectării între Ungaria și Austria și toate celelalte lucruri. Ce intenționați să faceți? A doua chestiune: foarte multă lume se plânge de faptul că piața este manipulată, că există foarte multe tranzacții care sunt în afara reglementărilor europene, se folosesc informații false, înșelătoare.
Există REMIT 2, există ACER-ul care face investigații. Din păcate acest proces este foarte lent. Și acest lucru vreau să vă întreb: intenționați ca această să alocați resursele umane și financiare ACER-ului astfel încât aceste cazuri, 400 și ceva la număr, să poată să fie investigate și să știm și noi și toată opinia publică și oamenii cărora li s-au umflat facturile la electricitate sau companiile în mod gratuit, care este soluția? Și a treia chestiune este legată de prețul certificatelor de dioxid de carbon. Europa are 80 de euro tona de certificate de dioxid de carbon în timp ce China are undeva între 10 și 13.
Am intervenit cu mecanismul de ajustare a carbonului la frontieră. Am intervenit cu celelalte lucruri care vin ca o compensare. Intenționați să aveți câteva măsuri care să sprijine aceste industrii care sunt grav afectate de aceste discrepanțe ale prețului, de exemplu în cazul certificatelor de dioxid de carbon?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you so much for your questions. I take two different topics from your intervention. One of them is what about the price of electricity and the interconnections. And it is true that this is one of the most important aims of the Commission in this mandate: how to ensure that electricity price is affordable and how we can support Member States to get this right because at the end it is a social shield for households and consumers, but it is also very important in terms of industrial competitiveness and capacity to keep on investing in Europe in new industries. And I would say that it is a combination of things.
Yes, we still miss a real single market in terms of energy. Electricity interconnections are not there and the organization of the electricity market according to the same parameters may help, but it is not enough. So this is why we have bet so heavily on interconnections and capacity to invest in these grids thinking on the European-wide scale. At the very same time we also think that we have to follow very closely the evolution of the market prices and to be alert to identify whenever there is any type of risk, threat, suspicion of having a manipulation in the market. For the time being we have been working hard on this.
We have even stated a group to follow what role gas prices may have and to what extent there could be any type of thing didn't work sufficiently well in the previous crisis. We have not identified anything that could be illegal, but we need to remain quite alert on this. On the second aspect that you were considering: what is the adequate price in terms of CO2 price signals and to what extent we can use CBAM or we can ensure that there's an increasing similar level of carbon price all over the world.
I would say that on one side we have managed in these last 20 years to ensure that there is a very relevant number of nations that do count on carbon pricing mechanism, which is very good and it is a direct effect of the adoption of this CBAM mechanism reflecting that if anyone is willing to enter into the internal market in Europe to sell their products, they need to comply with this requirement of counting on a carbon price. It is true that the level of pricing that change depending on the jurisdiction, the geography that we are talking about. And it is true that we need to think how we can increase the level of synergies between the different price signals. This is why I think that keeping CBAM is so important and this is why we think that taking the experience from the last 20 years should illustrate, should facilitate, should ensure that we come up with a proposal that does work for the coming 20 years, including the very short-term reference challenges, but also keeping the right signals in the time to come. So to mean that we need to count on certain flexibilities, we need to ensure that our industries are not penalized, but also being fully aware of what everybody, including the incumbents, say around the importance to keep stable and predictable mechanism in terms of carbon pricing as it has been the ETS in the last 20 years.
Thank you.
Paolo Borchia
Sì, grazie, signor Ribera. Voglio parlare italiano. Il Clean Industrial Deal State Framework nasce per accelerare gli investimenti in energia pulita, pulita, chiedo scusa, decarbonizzazione industriale e tecnologie pulite. Ma a quasi un anno di distanza c'è un dato politico evidente, vale a dire che la capacità di utilizzare questo strumento non è distribuita in maniera uniforme tra gli Stati. Secondo i dati 2024 della Commissione, gli aiuti di Stato nell'Unione hanno raggiunto circa 152 miliardi di euro.
Li conosciamo: Germania, Germania e la Francia stanno investendo tanto, un Paese come l'Italia invece resta indietro in maniera molto significativa. E questo non è un dettaglio tecnico, però è la prova, Commissario, che un quadro comune applicato a economie con margini fiscali profondamente diversi tra di loro non produce delle condizioni di partenza equivalenti. Infatti il problema non è il principio, ma è l'asimmetria strutturale. Se uno Stato può mobilitare più risorse nazionali, in un altro modo lo stesso framework non corregge il divario e lo fotografa, in parte lo consolida. In altre parole, chi parte forte rimane forte, chi parte debole rimane vincolato a margini che non ha contribuito a definire.
Arrivo al punto. Per risolvere uno squilibrio che è politico e strutturale, quali azioni intende la Commissione intraprendere? Si intende rivedere il disegno dei tetti e delle intensità nel framework oppure, a suo modo di vedere, bastano pochi ritocchi tecnici?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Grazie mille. So thank you, thank you so much. And allow me to say that this is precisely why two Italian nationals insisted on the need of further integration.
I think that the main bold answer to the question is the more integrated we are, the more common fiscal space and capacity to deliver we may count on. And this has always been the case and it has taken time and we should not go backwards in terms of further integration of our economy and economic space. But as you also know, this is not exactly the case yet. I think that there are still lots of policies that remain national policies and that need to be combined respecting the national political preferences. And this shows that even if we count on similar rules and common frameworks, also in terms of fiscal discipline, in terms of goals to be achieved, we come from different backgrounds, we may come from different capacities that need to be corrected thanks to the cohesion policy.
But we need to respect the whole set of rules. When taking into consideration all these elements, it's true that the capacity to invest in terms of subsidies may differ from one country to another. And what we want to ensure is that whenever decision is taken, those that have deeper pockets do not take advantage so to get an overcompensation to companies distorting the single market. And that through the cohesion funds, the elements that try to correct this difference, there are opportunities for those that still may be lagging behind in certain aspects that are so relevant in terms of building the infrastructures and the capacities to keep on boosting their economy. And I would say that in the case of Italy, trying to think how such a very relevant industrial powerhouse may count on lower prices for electricity and how the new electricity market may be evolving in Italy, my sense is that the Italian business community, the Italian government, the Italian regions are also thinking about how they can speed up the transition, investing in infrastructures, investing in new capacities to produce electricity that do not rely on something that we do not produce at all, which is natural gas.
So I think that it is a combination of different policy actions that we need to put in place, including the possibility to use the revenues coming from the ETS to support the industrial sites. This is key. The ETS has got the capacity to create a big amount of wealth. And Member States that do manage, that do decide what to do with the largest part of these revenues are allowed to dedicate these revenues to support their industrial sites to update, to modernize, to decarbonize. So even if it has been an uneven landscape in Europe, there is still room for improvement and our work as Commission, our duty, our job is to come along with any Member State willing to find ways to afford and to find the right answers to support them in a way that is fully consistent with the principles of the Treaty.
Christophe Grudler
Merci Monsieur le Président, je vais parler en français. Madame la Vice-Présidente exécutive, la guerre au Moyen-Orient nous rappelle une réalité très simple en fait. Tant que l'Europe dépendra des énergies fossiles importées, elle restera vulnérable aux crises géopolitiques et aux chocs des prix. Notre réponse ne doit pas être de compenser éternellement les factures. Elle doit être de produire en Europe les technologies dont nous avons besoin, les renouvelables, les batteries, les réseaux, l'hydrogène, les toutes les technologies propres.
Mais pour cela, il faut une vraie politique industrielle. L'Industrial Accelerator Act va dans la bonne direction, il cherche à créer une demande européenne et à développer nos marchés stratégiques.
Mais nous ne créerons pas une industrie européenne avec des procédures lentes et imprévisibles. Aujourd'hui, pendant que la Chine, les États-Unis ou encore le Canada soutiennent massivement leur production, l'Europe demande encore aux États membres et aux industriels de remplir des dossiers complexes, d'attendre des mois, parfois des années, afin de démontrer un déficit de financement avant d'obtenir un soutien et le feu vert de de la Commission. Nous ne pouvons pas gagner la course industrielle mondiale avec des outils conçus pour une autre époque. De nombreux industriels européens demandent une évolution claire, des aides simples, prévisibles et directement liées à la production. Produire en Europe doit devenir un avantage.
Ma question est donc simple en conclusion, êtes-vous prête à faire évoluer rapidement le cadre des aides d'État pour en faire un véritable outil de politique industrielle européenne complémentaire de l'Industrial Accelerator Act et afin de donner à nos entreprises les moyens de rivaliser rapidement avec les États-Unis et avec la Chine.
Merci beaucoup.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Merci beaucoup pour la question. Je pense qu'il s'agit d'une question qui est d'une certaine manière un reflet un peu différent de la question précédente. So allow me to to to remind on something that is quite important for us. Yes, we think that it is quite legitimate that governments do want to support this update of the industrial sites, this deep transformation of the energy systems, this going deeper, quicker into smart, digital, effective, efficient electricity capacity sites so to electrify our economy. And this was why we adopted the TCTF.
These are all the things that Member States can do at the very high speed. And it is working, it is delivering. As I said, in less than one year, 124 billion euros have been backed through different measures coming from different Member States. At the very same time, there are two other very legitimate concerns that we need to address, and this is also why we adopted TCTF. On one side, to prevent distortions in the single market because there may be different capacities coming from different Member States and we don't want this to be an advantage for some against others.
We think that the level playing field is one of the very key pillars of our single market. And the other thing is that yes, of course, there may be other options, other ideas that are not reflected in TCTF. We got what we had learned from the previous crisis to reflect it in a document that can guide speedy reactions coming from Member States. But there may be other possibilities that are individually defined, shaped, that need to go through this scrutiny process so to ensure to everybody that there is no overcompensations or unlevel playing field compared to other competitors in the very same market. So I think that the system is pretty balanced.
And yes, I was committed to speed up this approach. This was why in three months we had the Clean Industrial Deal, in six months we had the Clean Industrial State Aid Framework adopted.
Thanks.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you very much, dear Vice-President. In northern Sweden, we're making some of Europe's boldest investments in technological leaps: fossil-free steel, iron ore, green hydrogen, batteries, clean manufacturing. These are not ordinary business investments. These are first-of-a-kind technological breakthroughs. And they have been supported from the government.
No major industrial transformation has happened without public support in its early stages. So state aid is needed. We know that China and the US are doing it. So we need it, and we need it especially in the hard-to-abate sectors. These are currently responsible for around a fifth of EU's emissions.
So looking at the first year of implementation, I see that only a very small part, 1%, of the state aid has gone to supporting industrial decarbonisation, technological leaps that we need for key sectors. Much more is going to helping keeping energy bills down. And of course to renewable energy, which we of course support. My question, I have two questions. First one is: how can we make sure that state aid is used so that it leads to green industrial transition and not just helping the industry preserve status quo?
And the second one is on ETS. Of course, state aid is not sufficient, as you said, Vice-President. We need strong price signals on emissions. And the Nordic Confederation of Enterprise and Industry recently wrote to the Commission and underlined this. Without a robust carbon price, we will not see the investments that we need in the transition.
So how will the Commission ensure that the new state aid framework supports first movers while preserving the ETS as the main long-term investment signal for industrial decarbonisation? Thank you.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you. Thank you so much. And allow me to express my admiration for what it is happening in northern Sweden. I think that it is the whole country backing technological breakthroughs that deserve respect. And I think that in these days when ETS review is part of the public discussion, we need to remind ourselves the importance to back the early movers, those that trusted the European institutions and the direction of travel that we know it is so important for the European economy and the European society.
And yes, we may need find ways to ensure that those that were slower, that have not moved, feel and identify why they need to move, but not at the cost, not at the price to kill these capacities to innovate that were put in place in the previous years. So that's the very important statement that I'm sure will be part of the your discussion when dealing with the ETS review in the months to come. My second comment is what we wanted to back in the Clean Industrial State Aid Framework was the full deployment of renewable energy, the clean tech manufacturing, the industrial decarbonisation. But we also accepted that there may be a need to count on temporary price relief in a change of investments in clean energy.
And it is not exactly the same that we have back in these last months. So how we could count on a kind of price relief no more than three months due to the crisis that came up when the bombing on Iran started, the Strait of Hormuz was closed. But this may be temporary. This is not addressing at all the root causes of what we need to face, which is that we want to count on reliable, clean, affordable, efficient energy uses, energy prices. And I think that this is the main source of political capital that we need to invest and that we need to address.
So I think that the combination of the two things, short-term relief, which is temporary and limited, but main support to this transformation is going to be key. The CBAM may cover a bit. The price signal being sent by the ETS is still a very relevant driver and it needs to remain a very relevant driver. So it needs to be in a range that makes decisions easier. It needs to come up with this commitment coming from Member States and coming from the Commission to dedicate a large amount of these resources to climate action, including supporting the transformation of our industrial sites.
This is why the idea coming from the President of the College stating that maybe a booster for industries to innovate an early capacity to dedicate part of these revenues to make this change could ensure that we can enhance the opportunities in front of us. But as you say, we need the combination of the different elements. Governments, nations may be willing to support their companies. Maybe in China, in the United States, they do it differently. But we know that we have learned how to do it and we cannot derail our own capacities to build the economy of the future and to gain prosperity for the future generations.
Borys Budka
Thank you. And the last but not least in this round, Rudy Kennes on behalf of The Left.
Rudi Kennes
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Dutch. Ja, dank u, Commissaris. De Clean Industrial Deal bevat een aantal belangrijke doelstellingen voor de decarbonisatie. En hoe beoordeelt u momenteel de uitvoering van de Clean Industrial Deal gelet op de sterke tegenstand van rechtse partijen en dan voornamelijk de klimaatontkenners?
Mijn tweede vraag die betreft de staatssteun. De Commissie erkent eindelijk dat de Europese Unie om onze decarbonisatiedoelstellingen te halen de lidstaten de ruimte moet geven om te investeren en de regels van het stabiliteitspact moet versoepelen. Dit kader is echter nog steeds bedoeld om particuliere bedrijven te subsidiëren. In het verleden zijn er miljoenen uitgegeven aan bedrijven voor groene transitie. ArcelorMittal voor het vergroenen van de staalproductie, ze namen het geld aan, cashten, boekten enorme winst, schrapten vervolgens honderden banen en sloten de staalfabriek.
Audi Brussel voor de productie van elektrische voertuigen, zij bouwden de modernste koolstofneutrale fabriek, leiden hun werknemers miljoenen uren op en sloten vervolgens de fabriek en 3.000 mensen ontslagen. Northvolt voor de productie van accu's voor elektrische voertuigen, ze gingen failliet en ontsloegen 5.000 werknemers. Miljoenen werknemers geraakten hun baan kwijt terwijl incompetente CEO's nog grotere bonussen ontvingen. Er is geen enkele verantwoording afgelegd en er is geen enkele compensatie voor deze werknemers. Daarom vraag ik u, hoe gaat de Commissie ervoor zorgen dat de bindende voorwaarden worden gekoppeld aan decarbonisatiefondsen?
Dat overheidsgeld niet langer wordt verspild. Dat bedrijven die overheidsgeld niet gebruiken voor decarbonisatie het geld terugbetalen of boetes betalen.
En tenslotte dat het misbruik van overheidsgeld wordt bestraft, boetes worden opgelegd en falende CEO's eindelijk ter verantwoording worden geroepen. Dank u wel.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you for your question, for your comments. I broadly share what you have said. I think that it is important to dedicate the public resources, the common resources to boost the capacity to gain, to win, to build the economy of the future, but it is clear that we may need to think how it may be more conditional, so that in case it is not dedicated, it is not being used there where it should be used, it should revert to the public budget, it should revert to the common capacity to keep on building elsewhere. This is why we think that we need to go through this assessment on the ETS and how we have managed to get lots of positive things, but there are still issues that we can improve in the time, in the time to come. At the very same time, I don't think that the state is going to solve all these things.
What we need to ensure is that we are sufficiently appealing, sufficiently reliable, that we are sufficiently sound and strong to appeal for clean investments in our own continent. And my conviction is that this is the case. And of course there may be sectors, companies, countries where there are concerns in a very localized manner that we need to address, we need to think how to solve them, how to afford them, but I think that broadly speaking, we have lots of things to offer if we are reliable, predictable and we don't promote a kind of pendular swing as in certain cases some may be asking for. Getting rid of what has succeeded would be a big mistake. Updating, providing flexibilities, ensuring that we can afford the future in a very sound manner is very important.
One of these elements that make this decision sound is paying attention to people. This is not just to make or to ensure big business. This is a societal thing. This is something that should be focused on how we can create wealth for Europeans, for Europe and the Europeans. So workers do matter, jobs do matter.
I don't like when I have the impression that there may be people using the concerns being expressed by jobs, the legitimate rights by normal households, by citizens, by workers as a means to say do not do that, come back to the past, protect what it used to be the way we produce. Because we know that the way we produce was very inefficient. We're wasting resources. It is not competitive. That is not the answer, going back to the past.
The answer is how we can ensure that it is fair in social terms, but we can bet in a much more efficient manner to produce wealth and goods. My conviction is that this requires honest and respectful debate, discussions, dialogue with the unions and respectful manners to reskill and to provide opportunities to the people.
Because if we are not able as part of the European institutions, as part of the national institutions, to give the right answers, of course, citizens could be thinking that it is better to forget about everything and to adopt a kind of backing of the wildlife. But that is not going to help democracy. That is not going to solve any problem. So thinking that being angry is going to solve the problems is not truth. And it is not an easy task.
And yes, I'm worried about the car industry. Of course I'm worried. And it is not something that anyone can say that has come as a surprise because we have been working trying to identify how we could keep the industrial value chain in Europe thinking into the future, being much more efficient, much more cleaner and developing new innovative technological approaches. But it has not worked as quick as it has worked elsewhere. Now it is our duty to be sure that we can catch up and come up with new possibilities.
But we cannot leave the workers aside. I think that we need to combine all this and of course we know it is not easy, but it is, it could not be a good piece of advice hiding the problems, but affording the problems. Listing the problems is always easier than trying to list the solutions to each of the problems. And I think that our duty, our responsibility is try to work, debate, discuss how we can build the solutions to that long list of problems being aware of the long list of strengths that we still have. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now we start the catch-the-eye procedure, but I inform that it will be strictly one minute for one question and then in the end the Commissioner will answer all of them, so it's not the procedure like we had before. So first, Letizia Moratti.
Letizia Moratti
Thank you, good morning Vice-President Ribera, and thank you, and I will speak in Italian. Lei ha parlato della revisione degli ETS e la Presidente von der Leyen ha assunto l'impegno di tener conto delle preoccupazioni dell'industria nell'ambito dei benchmark. Ci sono di fatto numerosi comparti industriali per i quali non esistono le migliori tecniche disponibili che siano in grado di consentire una piena decarbonizzazione. Il settore ceramico, per esempio, appunto ne è un esempio, è un comparto ad alta intensità energetica, fortemente esposto alla concorrenza internazionale, occupa migliaia di lavoratori e pur investendo in innovazione continua a scontrarsi con limiti tecnologici e con un accesso fortemente disomogeneo ai vettori energetici decarbonizzati. Intende dunque, Commissaria Vicepresidente, adottare un'impostazione realmente settoriale basata sulle evidenze e sulle specificità industriali e territoriali oppure la Commissione sta valutando un approccio orizzontale che finirebbe per penalizzare proprio i settori per i quali oggi la decarbonizzazione non è ancora tecnicamente realizzabile?
Krzysztof Hetman
Thank you, Chair, I'm going to speak Polish. Please use your headphones. Thank you very much. Szanowna Pani Wiceprzewodnicząca, chciałbym poruszyć kwestię prac nad wytycznymi w sprawie pomocy państwa w sektorze transportu lotniczego i lotnisk regionalnych, takich jak na przykład port lotniczy Lublin, to tam, gdzie zaczyna się Unia Europejska, które w mojej ocenie wymagają ponownego rozpatrzenia.
Po pierwsze, projekt wytycznych opiera się głównie na wolumenie pasażerskim, co nie odzwierciedla w pełni realiów ekonomicznych portów regionalnych, które często funkcjonują przy niższych przychodach i ograniczonych możliwościach ich dywersyfikacji. Po drugie, proponowane progi poniżej miliona pasażerów dla udzielania pomocy operacyjnej prowadzą do podejmowania decyzji biznesowych podyktowanych ograniczeniami regulacyjnymi, a nie względami efektywności. To spowolni rozwój rynku zamiast go wspierać. Nie zgadzam się również z definicją obszaru ciążenia opartą wyłącznie na kilometrach, co nie odzwierciedla rzeczywistej konkurencji między lotniskami. Decydującym powinien być czas dojazdu i dostępność transportowa, a nie sama odległość.
Chciałbym przypomnieć, że lotniska regionalne pełnią dziś funkcje strategiczne, wspierają mobilność wojskową, działania NATO, operacje humanitarne i reagowanie kryzysowe. Nie są to zadania, które mogą być finansowane wyłącznie z działalności komercyjnej. Chciałbym zatem zwrócić się do pani przewodniczącej z prośbą i apelem o bardziej elastyczne podejście do kwestii lotnisk regionalnych, uwzględniając znaczenie gospodarcze, społeczne i strategiczne poszczególnych lotnisk. Dziękuję bardzo.
Nicolás González Casares
Gracias, presidente, y gracias, vicepresidenta. En el pleno de abril, la presidenta von der Leyen anunció la intención de introducir un objetivo de electrificación para 2040 y la Comisión presentará este viernes como parte de su plan de acción. Yo creo que la electrificación, sin duda, es un elemento central de nuestra senda de descarbonización, es decir, descarbonizar la demanda, toda la demanda fósil que se pueda con energías renovables y autóctonas, creo que es importante en estos momentos para nuestra autonomía estratégica y competitividad. Sin embargo, la electrificación no puede ser un objetivo en sí misma. Su éxito depende de una expansión paralela y sólida de las energías renovables, con todas las interconexiones que necesitamos en la Unión Europea y esfuerzos sostenidos en eficiencia energética.
Y yo, desde luego, lo que sí defenderé es un fuerte objetivo de renovables. Ese sí que es un objetivo. Por lo tanto, ¿podría indicarnos si el próximo objetivo de electrificación está concebido para complementar o sustituir los objetivos de energías renovables y de eficiencia energética de la Unión Europea en la arquitectura posterior a 2030? Gracias, vicepresidenta.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, chair, thank you, Madam Vice-President. Good state aid framework is crucial tool to ensure transition to clear economy, that's clear. So I have to give Commission credit for CEEAG, well done, thank you. But according to my information, deadlines for implementing some major projects in the field of industrial decarbonisation bringing significant environmental benefits in steel, cement and chemical industry, which were approved under Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, which was predecessor, were too short. Project in this sector typically require five to eight years to prepare and to implement.
As a result, number of strategically important investments have been delayed, scaled down or even abandoned. So my question is whether the CEEAG rules for project timing could be possibly applied to major project that could not be implemented within short time frame and were approved under Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework and are currently running out of time. I think it will be fair. Thank you very much.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much and great to see you again, Executive Vice-President. Now, I start with a very fast comment on the ETS and call on the Commission to in its revision require that the Member States invest the money into decarbonization of industry because if only 5% is going there, then obviously this is where the Member States, not the Commission, are making things horribly wrong for the industry and our competitiveness. But main points: methane. Can you assure me that the Commission will not be reopening the methane legislation because indeed getting and working to reduce the methane emissions can make according to the International Energy Agency 100 billion cubic meters more available, which is pretty much the same as Strait of Hormuz. So actually what the methane regulation wants is tap the leaks, keep the product so we can use it.
So I expect the Commission not opening it. And last but not least, geothermal. I have to say that I'm a bit worried by what I saw in the leaked electrification strategy that the Commission is very much underutilizing the potential that this especially the next generation geothermal has because other countries are going ahead and we will be lagging behind. So can you promise that we would do more? Thank you.
Jutta Paulus
Yes, thank you very much for being here, Madam Vice-President, and for answering all these different difficult questions. As you have already mentioned, 14,000 people died in the last heatwave. France is suffering the third heatwave in two months and it's not even August. So we see that climate crisis is accelerating, threatening lives, well-being, and also the economy of European Union. So I would like to ask you: do you agree with the assessment of Lex Coors, head of European Data Centre Association, that EU must choose between AI and climate targets and with his demand to choose the former, not the latter?
If not, I would like to know why the Commission has still not published the efficiency label for data centers, let alone the minimum performance standards, which are part of agreed legislation Energy Efficiency Directive and would have been due in May 2025. And how will the electrification action plan take into account the rising cooling demands in this changing climate? Thank you.
Per Clausen
Thank you very much. I will speak in Danish. Jeg synes, at vi ser en bekymrende tendens til, at Kommissionen mister fokus på den grønne omstilling i industripolitikken. Jeg synes, vi kan se det i Net-Zero Industry Act, hvor Kommissionen lægger op til at udvande miljøbeskyttelsen ved at udvide begrebet overriding public interest i meget stort omfang. Og efter min opfattelse, hvis man har et ønske om at skabe beskæftigelse og udvikling, så er det en helt forkert vej at skrue ned for de grønne ambitioner.
I Danmark, der har vi jo set, hvordan udviklingen af en grøn industri har banet vej for konkurrencedygtighed og skabt tusindvis af arbejdspladser. Den by, jeg selv kommer fra, Aalborg, ja, der har vi set, hvordan gamle industrier som skibsværft, tobak og bryggeri med videre er blevet erstattet af blandt andet en stor vindmøllefabrik og andre virksomheder, som bidrager til den grønne omstilling og skaber masser af grønne arbejdspladser med overenskomst og gode løn- og arbejdsvilkår.
Så jeg vil godt spørge kommissæren om, hvad er det for nogle konkrete industriprojekter, der anses for så afgørende for vores samfund, at det ikke kan gennemføres inden for de eksisterende rammer for overriding public interest, men nødvendiggør yderligere undtagelser fra miljølovgivningen?
Raúl de la Hoz Quintano
Gracias presidente, señora vicepresidenta. Le voy a hablar de del metano. Evidentemente la reducción de las emisiones de metano es un objetivo que lógicamente compartimos todos, pero reconozcamos algo. Habíamos quedado en que esta legislatura iba a ser la legislatura en el que el desarrollo de las políticas climáticas, la protección de el clima no iba a conllevar en ningún caso castigo a las empresas europeas e indirectamente por tanto a los ciudadanos con regulaciones como esta que la Comisión sabe que resultan imposibles de cumplir. El reglamento de emisiones de metano obliga, como usted bien sabe, a partir del 1 de enero de 2027 a que cualquier importador europeo de gas o de petróleo acredite que el productor del tercer país con el que contrata el suministro aplica medidas sobre emisiones de metano equivalentes a las europeas, cuando se sabe que el importador no tiene ningún control sobre los mismos.
Es decir, la Comisión lo que hace es trasladar a las empresas europeas una responsabilidad que no les corresponde y luego les amenaza con sanciones si no consiguen lo que la Comisión sabe es imposible de conseguir. Lo que va a ocurrir lo sabe bien la Comisión, se lo han trasladado hasta 17 gobiernos nacionales: inseguridad jurídica, dificultad para cerrar contratos, menos proveedores, menos competencia y, esto es lo más importante, encarecimiento de los precios del gas y de los combustibles y una Europa todavía más dependiente. Por eso, señora vicepresidenta, le pregunto: ¿va a hacer la Comisión antes del 1 de enero de 2027 algo más que publicar unas recomendaciones para los Estados sin valor ni eficacia jurídica alguna y dejando por tanto en manos de los gobiernos nacionales la posibilidad de imponer sanciones multimillonarias a la industria o se va a atrever, como le están pidiendo muchos gobiernos nacionales, proponer un procedimiento stop-the-clock como paso previo a una solución legislativa real que dé seguridad jurídica a las empresas y a todos los operadores y eviten y eviten que sean una vez más los ciudadanos europeos los que terminen pagando el precio de una mala regulación? Nada más y muchas gracias.
Jens Geier
Thank you President, I would like to speak German. Ja, erstmal herzlich willkommen Frau Vizepräsidentin, schön dass Sie wieder bei uns in den Ausschuss gekommen sind, freue mich sehr darüber. Sie sind heute Vormittag sehr sehr oft nach den Beihilfen gefragt worden und ich fürchte ich kann da keine Ausnahme machen. Sie haben auf den Erfolg von CEF hingewiesen, das teile ich. Jetzt kann ich mit ein bisschen Ironie sagen, wenn CEF noch ein bisschen großzügiger wäre, dann wäre er noch erfolgreicher.
Ich glaube dann würden Mitgliedstaaten noch ein wenig mehr Geld bereitstellen und ich glaube die Industrie ist im dringenden Bedarf das zu tun. Punkt zwei: klar, das ist der Job der Kommission laut Vertrag Beihilfen zu prüfen, ob sie wettbewerbsverzerrend sind. Und gerade wenn ich als solcher Sozialdemokrat nach nach solchen Beihilfen frage, kriege ich oft den Vorwurf: na ja, ihr Deutschen habt ja tiefe Taschen, so heißt es dann immer, ihr könnt im Zweifel eure Industrie stärker unterstützen als andere, die Einsparungsauflagen unterliegen. Das ist sicherlich richtig. Und wenn ich mich richtig erinnere, hat Enrico Letta in seinem Bericht 2024 dieses Problem aufgegriffen und einen europäischen Beihilfefonds vorgeschlagen.
Jetzt mal meine Frage: ist wird so was in der Kommission diskutiert? Also könnten wir die Hoffnung haben, dass sich in dieser Richtung was bewegt? Dankeschön.
Carlo Ciccioli
Grazie. È evidente che la situazione oggi è molto complessa. Il quadro si è cambiato ulteriormente rispetto alle valutazioni precedente, sia per le guerre in corso, purtroppo gli ultimi vicende dell'estremo oriente, sappiamo tutti, medio-estremo oriente, l'uscita degli Stati Uniti dagli accordi di Parigi. Quindi il rischio è che noi non salviamo il pianeta, però diventiamo poveri indigenti. E questo è il destino degli europei in queste condizioni.
Quindi l'approccio realistico è assolutamente incentivare le rinnovabili, anzi sostenerle nel massimo. Però dobbiamo iniziare a pensare di spingere sul nucleare, sui biocarburanti in maniera significativa e sulle geotermiche. Perché se no la competitività industriale dell'Europa finisce. Quindi il fondo, gli aiuti di Stato devono essere in qualche modo intercettati nel nuovo bilancio. Per l'ETS2 c'è molta preoccupazione in tutte le industrie europee e anche extraeuropee per le conseguenze.
Quindi io chiedo un approccio diverso. Quello che è stato approvato al Parlamento europeo è ridurre l'impatto, questo è stato quello che è stato detto. Poi a me sembra che invece tuttora è tutto come prima.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I will be very brief because we are running out of time. First of all, I would really like to inform you that we are moving quite well ahead with the grids package on the Parliament's perspective. The permitting aspects is already accepted and we're going to reach political agreement hopefully on the TEN-E this week, so we are moving in a timely manner to finish with the trilogues by the end of the year and to start the deployment of those important legislation.
I have a question which is starting to concern a few colleagues around here and of course our citizens and industries. There are a lot of priorities, you listed all of them, and we understand that there is quite limited funding when we are speaking about the electrification action plan, the Industrial Accelerator Act, the grids package. There is also rumor that probably the budget for the MFF might be not as big as it is now. Do you have any debates in the Commission in terms of prioritizing some of those key aspects? Thank you.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă
Thank you, I will speak Romanian. Da, v-am auzit aici vorbe, dar de fapt nicio soluție. Realitatea din teren este foarte dură și este complet diferită de ceea ce vorbiți dumneavoastră. Costuri uriașe pentru cetățeni. Energia curată și tehnologiile costă mult.
Facturile la energie, prețurile la mașini și producerea de această energie verde pune presiune financiară care cade direct pe umerii oamenilor de rând. Apoi avem fenomenul greenwashing. Multe companii mari doar își vopsesc imaginea în verde, își pun etichete ecologice pe produse, dar în realitate continuă să polueze masiv în fabricile, de exemplu, din Asia sau Africa. În România, țara mea, s-au atins țintele, vezi Doamne, pentru că s-a distrus industria.
Noi am fost o țară care aveam industrie în toate domeniile, iar după 1990, pentru intrarea în Uniunea Europeană, a trebuit să distrugem tot. Dumneavoastră v-ați referit la reconversie profesională. Nu se poate aplica. În România, jumătate din populație este în afara granițelor țării, în special în Uniunea Europeană, care ajută economiile celorlalte state. 10 milioane de români nu mai sunt în România.
Așa că și avem dependență de China și de toate aceste baterii electrice care sunt aproape total controlate de China, iar Europa practic scapă de dependența de gaz rusesc doar ca să devină dependentă de fabricile chinezești. Vă rog găsiți alte soluții și reveniți, părerea mea, la energia normală. Puteți merge în paralel cu această energie verde, dar nu renunțați la energia cealaltă, pentru că, de fapt, nu avem lipsă de poluare. Avem și mai mare poluare. Mulțumesc.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now we've got a last five minutes for closing remarks and answering the question, but if it's possible for you, dear Commissioner, you can answer all questions if you have enough time. So thanks a lot and the floor is yours.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you. Thank you so much. That's a challenging request to stick to these five minutes, but I will do my best. Just to start with the very end. The green energy does not cost more.
On the contrary, it is the cheapest operational energy that you can count on. The thing that costs the most is something that we need to import: fossil fuels. That's really expensive. And we cannot be competitive on that because we do not count on that. We cannot produce that.
It's not in our continent. So we will never be able to compete with others if the first raw material that we need, energy, is coming from elsewhere. And this is something that is not going to happen from one day to the next one. We need to accommodate the transformation and paying attention to the people. This is why it is so key to answer in concrete terms how to solve the challenges, but not to deny the challenges or not to deny the realities.
That's what I wanted to mean and I think it is important. And I agree with you. I think it could be fantastic to count on sound greenwashing levels that prevent companies using the expectations of people selling what it is not truth. So yes, I think that greenwashing is something that we need to prevent. And yes, I think that we need to invest in our future, in our capacity to innovate and to develop clean tech.
And this is why the Green Deal, the Clean Industrial Deal, the introduction of this reference on how we can develop an industrial policy at the European scale, using, taking advantage of the big European market and integrating our markets is so important. And yes, I think that it is important to visit the people on the ground. And I still have pending a visit to Romania. I hope that we can count on a government soon so that I can visit your country. And I think that one of the most important aspects that we will be trying to achieve in this mandate is how we can combine all these challenges because in fact it's transforming the big puzzle, taking into consideration so many different pieces that we know that we need everybody on board.
And I'm going to go through all the questions that you have raised that are very different and that address many key aspects. Starting with the benchmarks. Yes, we have adopted at the working group level with the Coreper with member states an approach on sectoral fallback benchmarks that will be reflected in the that reflected the Commission proposal and could be adopted in the implementing regulation or through the implementing regulations so that we will be presenting a self-standing proposal that reflects the agreement with member states. And benchmarks are important for the industry and we have been trying to take into consideration the different concerns being expressed by the different sectoral industries that may have different approaches to this to this element. And yes, I think that taking into consideration the capacity of the different airports is something that we need to pay attention to.
This is why we came up with a revision of the state aid that can be used by member states to regional local airports. It is still under consultation with national governments. We've gone through public consultation and we will come up with a proposal taking into consideration the different possible references that may be used, knowing that it is something that cannot be everywhere, it doesn't make much sense, but knowing that we need to update or to take into consideration different points of concerns. Electrification is absolutely key. It is not an objective on its own as you were commenting, but it is the best way to address this issue of counting on affordable, modern, clean and efficient energy responses to energy needs and the people.
And I think that we we should count on an electrification target oriented to the demand so that we can improve the final users of electricity. But I also think, I agree with you, that the renewal target for 2040 is still quite an important aspect to be reflected. It is still under work and I will not be addressing many of the questions that you raised, you are not here anymore, but I took note. And and that is part of what we may be needing to fit this Friday and afterwards, the post-2030, the the electrification action plan and the different targets being reviewed, being updated in the time in the time to come. Then you came up with something which is also very important, the clean steel, the capacity to use the clean industrial state aid framework to support the decarbonization of the industrial sectors and eventually, as I say, to count on short-term price relief for the energy consumption.
The main goal is to support the transformation of our industrial plants. And it may be used or may be supported through the clean industrial state aid mechanism or state aid at the national level, but it also can count on the signal being or coming from the from the CO2 price and the allocation of revenues that are managed by the member states to support the industrial sites. In addition, as I say, the decarbonization bank and the booster may help into this deep transformation of our industrial sites. I insist on this because you have commented, some of you have commented on the importance to count on European scale mechanism. And I agree on that.
I think that it is much more fair, stable, it provides a consistent signal in terms of the full geography of Europe.
And it is part of our conviction that counting on one Europe should mean counting on one single market and counting on common mechanism to address the challenges. It is connected back to the MFF discussion, to the possibility to count on new own resources, to the discussion on how we prioritize. The priorities of the Commission were reflected on the MFF and we are still working with the Council. We counted on the report coming from the Parliament. We took note of the expectations and the proposals for improvement coming from the different institutions and the Parliament.
But this is one of the main issues. And we realize and we witness how there may be other proposals on the table. How we can bet and invest today so to keep on building the future and not to keep restrained on the capacity to keep on boosting this, this opportunities. Then you came up with another topic which is also relevant, the methane regulation. I would say that first of all, I think that we cannot choose between being competitive or being clean.
I think that we cannot renounce on being consistent when addressing these, these approaches. And I think that the existing regulation is not something that came by surprise. So there may be issues of security of supply that justify something that it is already included in the methane regulation so to be sure that if it is not possible to ensure that the supply is there, we need to accept that sanctions may not be part of what Member States can, can implement, can enforce. But at the very same time, I think that the goals, the intentions, the direction of travel is very clear. And yes, I think that using our leverage, our capacity to those that supply the European needs is an important instrument that we cannot forget.
So my recommendation to the importers, to the traders is to keep on identifying how they can ensure a compliance plan. First comment, second comment, as far as it comes back to our own domestic reality, the least we rely on imported fossil fuel, in this case natural gas, the more autonomous, the more free, the more competitive we may be. This is why electrification or green molecules, homegrown solutions are so, so important. Final comments on other topics that you raised. You raised the issue of the data centers and the cooling demand and the efficiency level for data centers.
This is a very key aspect. Data centers, the digitalization of the economy, the AI development which is already part of our reality is quite an important driver and we don't want to rely on something that we are not able to produce. We think that it is important that we develop our own capacities. But it is the single most important increase of electricity demand that we are facing.
One competitive aspect would be the more efficient they are, the better for everybody. Another relevant element that we are paying attention is something coming from the French National Competition Authority sending a warning: be careful, because this is the most important raw material that they may be asking for, electricity. And if the speed of demand goes far beyond the speed to ensure more electricity on the ground, they may be creating some difficulties to other industrial consumers that cannot pay as much as this sector may be in a position to pay. So yes, it is a new challenge. Yes, being as efficient as it should be is very important.
Yes, it is our intention to come up with a proposal for the adoption on data center labelling, and that's part of what we try to reflect in the electrification action plan this Friday. I think that more or less, yes, well, there have also been comments on the Accelerator Act and the transformation needs, how we can support the employment, the creation of employment. I think that we count on a good basis, but I think that we need to pay attention on what could be the labor needs and to what extent we count on the skills, the capacity to educate, and to what extent we pay attention to the social players to ensure that we act accordingly in an anticipated manner. So thanks, thanks a lot, Chair, and thanks a lot to all of you. More than happy to meet you whenever you want, to come again whenever you want.
And if I may, this is not very, how to say, formal, but I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to wish you a well-deserved happy summer break. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Vice-President. Thank you, all members. And now we will have the short break till 2:30 for the next item. Thanks a lot.