The European Commission has opened talks with oil producers, refiners and NATO over the future of Europe’s fuel industry, exposing growing tensions between decarbonisation, industrial competitiveness and the demands of military preparedness.

The European Union is reconsidering the strategic importance of its oil-refining industry as disruptions to international energy supplies and growing defence requirements force Brussels to examine whether Europe can afford further reductions in domestic fuel production.

On 28 October, the European Commission convened its first high-level dialogue with the European refining industry, bringing together energy companies, technology providers and representatives of NATO.

The meeting was chaired jointly by Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen and Defence and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.

Its significance extends beyond the immediate increase in fuel prices associated with the conflict in the Middle East.

Brussels is confronting a longer-term problem: Europe intends to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but its transport networks, industrial infrastructure and military forces remain substantially dependent on petroleum products.

The question is no longer simply how quickly the European economy can decarbonise. It is also how much refining capacity must be retained to guarantee essential fuel supplies during a geopolitical crisis.

A strategic industry under pressure

Europe’s refining industry occupies an important position in the continent’s energy system.

According to figures published by the European Commission, EU refineries supply approximately 70 per cent of the jet fuel and 85 per cent of the diesel consumed in Europe.

These products are essential not only for civilian transport and logistics but also for military aviation, armoured vehicles and the movement of equipment.

Maintaining adequate production capacity therefore has implications for both economic activity and defence readiness.

Yet European refineries have faced difficult commercial conditions for years.

High energy costs, international competition and declining expectations for long-term fossil-fuel demand have complicated investment decisions.

Refineries require substantial capital expenditure to remain competitive, meet environmental requirements and adapt production processes.

Companies considering whether to modernise facilities must consequently assess the profitability of assets that may be expected to operate in a progressively decarbonising economy.

The resulting uncertainty creates a problem for governments seeking to retain strategically important industrial capabilities.

The Middle East conflict changes the calculation

The immediate catalyst for the Commission’s initiative is the disruption to energy markets caused by the continuing conflict in the Middle East.

Interruptions to supply chains and uncertainty over maritime transport have increased concerns about the availability and cost of refined petroleum products.

Importing crude oil and importing finished fuels are not equivalent from a strategic perspective.

A country with domestic refining capacity can process available crude into the particular products required by its economy.

An economy heavily dependent on imported refined products is additionally exposed to processing capacity, transport availability and commercial decisions outside its jurisdiction.

The distinction becomes particularly relevant when governments must guarantee supplies of diesel and aviation fuel during an emergency.

European policymakers are therefore examining ways to improve output from existing facilities and strengthen the resilience of fuel supply chains.

However, the Commission has not announced a binding production target or a programme to reopen closed refineries.

The 28 October meeting represents the beginning of a policy discussion rather than the adoption of a new industrial strategy.

NATO introduces a different perspective

The participation of NATO gives the initiative a wider security dimension.

Military preparedness requires dependable access to energy products, including during periods when normal commercial supply chains are disrupted.

Aircraft, naval vessels, military logistics and ground operations cannot be reorganised around alternative energy sources at the same pace as some civilian activities.

Furthermore, the ability to sustain prolonged operations depends on reliable industrial production, storage, distribution and transport.

A refinery’s strategic importance may therefore exceed its immediate commercial profitability.

That raises difficult policy questions.

Governments may consider whether critical production facilities require targeted support, whether strategic stockpiles are sufficient and how supply arrangements should function during emergencies.

Any intervention would have to address competition rules, public financing and the risk of subsidising facilities that become commercially unviable.

Decarbonisation remains part of the policy

Brussels has not abandoned its climate objectives.

The Commission has explicitly linked its refining discussions to the development of sustainable biofuels and synthetic fuels, commonly known as e-fuels.

These technologies offer potential alternatives for sectors where direct electrification remains technically difficult, including aviation.

However, their commercial development requires investment, suitable feedstocks, reliable energy supplies and sufficient demand.

Traditional refineries may be able to participate in this transition, although the technical requirements and economic viability vary between facilities.

Jørgensen said the Commission intended to work with industry on a roadmap that would reconcile domestic fuel production with Europe’s longer-term climate ambitions.

The challenge will be translating those objectives into investment decisions.

Europe’s industrial strategy faces a practical test

The initiative illustrates a wider adjustment in European economic policy.

In recent years, the EU has increasingly described industrial capacity as an element of economic security, rather than treating production solely as a commercial activity.

Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and defence equipment have all attracted attention because of vulnerabilities in international supply chains.

Oil refining is now entering the same discussion.

The Commission must determine how to preserve sufficient capacity for essential civilian and military requirements while continuing to encourage cleaner technologies.

Those objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but they operate over different timescales and involve different commercial incentives.

For European refiners, the central question is whether governments can provide enough regulatory and investment certainty to support modernisation.

For Brussels, it is whether the energy transition can proceed without creating new strategic dependencies.

The outcome of the dialogue will indicate how the EU intends to balance its climate commitments with the industrial demands of a less predictable security environment.

The European Parliament has taken another step towards revising the European Union’s 2035 vehicle-emissions framework, after lawmakers from three major political groups agreed amendments offering manufacturers greater flexibility in meeting carbon dioxide reduction targets.

The compromise, approved on 22 October by Parliament’s Transport and Industry committees, proposes an 87.5 per cent reduction in average emissions from new passenger cars by 2035, compared with the 2021 baseline. This is less stringent than the European Commission’s proposed 90 per cent reduction and represents a further departure from the existing 100 per cent reduction in tailpipe emissions for new cars and vans.

The changes have not become law. They remain subject to parliamentary procedures and negotiations with EU governments. Nevertheless, the committee agreement shows how concerns over manufacturing competitiveness, production costs and technological choices are reshaping European climate legislation.

A fundamental revision of the 2035 framework

The original 2035 target, adopted in 2023 as part of the EU’s Fit for 55 legislation, required manufacturers to achieve a 100 per cent reduction in average tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and vans. It effectively directed the market towards battery-electric and other zero-emission vehicles.

Manufacturers have argued that the transition is taking place under difficult commercial conditions. Competition from Chinese producers, costs of developing new platforms and batteries, and uncertainty over charging infrastructure contributed to demands for regulatory flexibility.

In December 2025, the European Commission responded with an automotive package proposing a 90 per cent reduction requirement by 2035. It would permit manufacturers to compensate for some remaining emissions using mechanisms involving low-carbon steel produced in the EU and qualifying renewable fuels.

The latest parliamentary compromise would lower the target further, to 87.5 per cent, while allowing low-carbon steel credits to count towards compliance. For light commercial vehicles, lawmakers also proposed reducing the 2035 target to 80 per cent and the 2030 target to 35 per cent.

Why low-carbon steel matters

A notable feature of the compromise is the connection between car-emissions rules and European steelmaking. Steel production is a major industrial source of carbon dioxide, and companies face investment requirements to replace conventional production processes with lower-emission alternatives.

Regulatory credits for carmakers using qualifying European low-carbon steel could create demand for cleaner industrial materials and encourage domestic investment. But emissions avoided during production are not equivalent to reductions in exhaust emissions. The accounting mechanism therefore creates a distinction between cutting tailpipe output and compensating for some remaining emissions through materials and manufacturing.

The compromise also connects vehicle rules with a broader industrial-policy debate about European-made products. As EU Today previously reported, vehicle decarbonisation has increasingly become part of the discussion about European industrial competitiveness.

Electric vehicle sales continue to increase

The debate comes despite growth in electric vehicle registrations. According to figures from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, battery-electric cars represented 22.7 per cent of new EU passenger car registrations in the first nine months of 2026, against 16.1 per cent during the same period of 2025.

Approximately 1.93 million battery-electric cars were registered between January and September, with considerable growth in Germany and France. Hybrid-electric vehicles nevertheless remained the largest single powertrain category at 36.3 per cent, while petrol and diesel together represented 28.2 per cent, down from 36.9 per cent a year earlier.

The figures show that electrification is progressing, but combustion engines still account for a substantial share of sales. Manufacturers must make investment decisions across several technologies while anticipating changing legislation.

Disagreements over industrial strategy

The parliamentary compromise follows discussions between France and Germany about the relationship between car-emissions rules and measures favouring European production. Paris has emphasised domestic industrial capacity; Berlin has pressed for greater technological flexibility.

Supporters of looser standards argue that manufacturers need time to adjust investment and respond to consumer demand. Critics warn that weakening the target could delay investments in electric vehicles, batteries and charging networks by making future demand less certain.

The eventual legislation will determine not only which vehicles may be sold after 2035, but also how the EU balances emissions reduction, international competition and the position of its manufacturing industry.

Europe’s electricity market recorded substantial regional differences on Tuesday, 27 October, with average wholesale prices ranging from approximately €6 per megawatt-hour in northern Sweden to more than €255 in Romania.

The figures reveal a persistent difficulty for European energy policy: although the continent has an increasingly interconnected electricity market, businesses and consumers remain exposed to very different underlying wholesale costs depending on location.

According to European day-ahead electricity market data, Sweden’s SE2 bidding zone recorded an average of €6.23 per megawatt-hour, while Finland stood at approximately €6.65. Romania reached €255.20, roughly 41 times northern Sweden’s price. Bulgaria registered approximately €254, Hungary €241 and Greece €225. Germany recorded approximately €155, Belgium €160 and France €162.

These are wholesale prices for delivery on 27 October, not final bills for households or businesses. Their differences nevertheless raise questions about how effectively Europe’s electricity networks distribute power from areas of lower-cost generation to those facing greater costs.

Why a common market produces different prices

European electricity trading is organised through interconnected national and regional markets. Cross-border capacity allows relatively inexpensive power to reach regions where demand is greater or local generation is more expensive.

When transmission capacity is adequate, neighbouring prices can converge. Physical networks, however, have limits. Congested interconnectors can prevent additional imports even when large price differences exist.

Other influences include availability of power stations, renewable output, fuel prices, consumption and system stability. Regions with substantial hydropower, nuclear generation or strong renewable production may experience comparatively low prices. Markets relying on gas-fired generation can be more expensive when gas plants are needed to satisfy the final increment of demand.

The result is a market responding to common European conditions but still shaped by local generation and transmission constraints.

Southeastern Europe’s structural constraints

The European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, ACER, has repeatedly examined the causes of regional price divergence. In its 2026 assessment of cross-zonal electricity trade, the agency considered unusually high prices and limited access to lower-cost power in southeastern Europe.

Constraints include available cross-border capacity and shortages of flexible generation able to respond to changing renewable output, especially in the evening. Countries including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia have encountered substantial regional differences.

Those findings do not prove the cause of each price movement on 27 October. They do, however, explain why disparities can persist despite common market rules. ACER has advocated improved coordination among transmission operators, more effective use of existing networks and additional flexibility through storage and demand management.

Industrial consequences of expensive electricity

Energy-intensive industries, including steel, chemicals and fertiliser production, are particularly sensitive to electricity costs. Where contracts are exposed to wholesale markets, sustained regional price differences can influence output and investment decisions.

The relationship between wholesale prices and bills is not immediate. Firms may hedge prices, use long-term contracts or produce their own power. Network charges, taxes and government support also affect the amount paid. Still, persistent market differences can shape industrial competitiveness.

As EU Today reported, EU energy ministers are due to examine proposed changes to electricity network charges and market administration on 29 October. Network tariffs are distinct from wholesale prices, but both affect total electricity costs.

Renewables and the need for flexible networks

According to ACER’s energy-market monitoring, renewable sources represented around half of EU electricity generation in 2025. Solar energy can reduce prices during the day, but output falls sharply towards evening, sometimes requiring more expensive power stations to increase generation.

This increases the value of storage, flexible production, responsive demand and international connections that can balance surpluses and shortages between regions. Yet major transmission lines can take years to complete owing to planning, permitting, investment and construction requirements.

The priority is therefore not simply to install more renewable capacity. Europe’s grids and supporting technologies must be capable of moving and using that output efficiently.

What the price divide reveals

A single day’s wholesale prices should not be mistaken for long-term average electricity costs or a permanent competitive advantage. Nevertheless, the persistence of regional disparities documented by regulators shows the problem extends beyond isolated daily volatility.

For EU institutions, the question is whether further market integration can make energy more affordable while preserving incentives to invest in generation and transmission. National governments must balance security of supply, infrastructure financing and industrial competitiveness.

Electricity trading across Europe is increasingly integrated. The physical systems supplying it remain considerably less uniform. Until those constraints are addressed, the price of power will continue to reflect geography as well as the underlying cost of energy.

European Union energy ministers will meet in Luxembourg on Thursday, 29th October, to discuss proposed changes to electricity network charges that could alter how households and businesses pay for the operation and expansion of Europe’s power grids.

The European Commission wants to revise the rules governing network tariffs, encourage more efficient electricity consumption and accelerate the introduction of smart meters and digital grid technologies. The measures form part of a wider effort to reduce electricity costs, which remain a significant concern for European households and industrial competitiveness.

According to the Council’s published agenda, ministers will examine legislation presented on 17th July alongside the European Commission’s Electrification Action Plan.

The proposals come as Europe faces continued energy-market volatility, with the war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East affecting supply expectations and prices. Ministers will also assess energy security ahead of the 2026–27 winter.

Why electricity network charges matter

Electricity bills contain several distinct components. Consumers pay for the electricity itself, the operation and maintenance of transmission and distribution networks, and applicable taxes and levies.

Network charges finance the infrastructure needed to deliver electricity from generating facilities to homes and businesses. They also contribute towards grid maintenance, balancing and new investment.

Unlike wholesale electricity prices, which fluctuate according to supply and demand, these charges are generally determined through regulated national tariff systems.

The Commission argues that existing arrangements do not always encourage efficient use of infrastructure or reflect the costs created by electricity consumption at different times and locations.

Its proposed regulation would amend Regulation 2019/943 to strengthen incentives for network operators to control costs and use existing capacity more effectively.

The legislation would also encourage tariffs that reflect when electricity is consumed and the demands placed on local networks.

For example, consumers who can move electricity-intensive activities away from periods of peak demand could face lower charges under certain tariff arrangements.

However, the financial benefits would depend on national implementation, available technology and individual consumption patterns.

Industry presses for lower energy costs

The Commission’s proposal recognises that electricity prices have become a major issue for European industrial competitiveness.

Energy-intensive manufacturers, including steel, chemicals and other industrial producers, face particular difficulties when electricity costs are substantially higher than those of international competitors.

The proposed legislation would allow specific categories of users, including energy-intensive businesses and data centres, to benefit from differentiated network charges where justified by their consumption patterns.

Such arrangements would be subject to safeguards intended to prevent disproportionate costs being transferred to households and smaller businesses.

The proposal also addresses energy taxation. Brussels wants the minimum taxation level for electricity to remain below that of natural gas, reducing a financial disincentive to replacing fossil-fuel equipment with electric alternatives.

As EU Today previously reported, the Commission has been examining changes to electricity taxation as part of its response to Europe’s exposure to imported energy and volatile international markets.

However, reducing charges for one category of consumer does not automatically reduce the overall cost of maintaining a national grid. Regulators must still determine how those costs are recovered.

A growing problem of grid congestion

Europe’s electricity networks require considerable investment to accommodate renewable generation, electric vehicles, heat pumps and expanding industrial demand.

The Commission estimates that approximately €600 billion in electricity-grid investment will be needed by 2030, rising to around €1.2 trillion by 2040.

These figures, outlined in its accompanying assessment, illustrate the difficulty of pursuing lower consumer charges while simultaneously financing substantial infrastructure expansion.

Grid congestion is already delaying connections for renewable-energy projects, industrial facilities and other electricity users.

As EU Today examined in its coverage of Europe’s grid bottlenecks, limited transmission capacity can prevent relatively inexpensive electricity from reaching regions where demand is greatest.

The latest proposal therefore places greater emphasis on making better use of existing infrastructure before committing to conventional network expansion.

It would encourage regulators and operators to consider digital technologies, flexible connection arrangements and improved network planning.

Smart meters and the distribution of costs

The Commission is also seeking faster deployment of smart meters, which can provide consumers and network operators with more detailed information about electricity consumption.

In principle, such systems allow households and businesses to adjust demand in response to changing prices and network conditions.

Industrial consumers may have greater flexibility to shift production schedules or invest in electricity storage. Households, however, may have fewer opportunities to change when they use energy, particularly where consumption is linked to heating or essential daily activities.

This raises questions about how tariff reforms would affect different consumers.

A system that rewards flexible consumption could reduce costs for households with smart appliances, batteries or electric vehicles, while offering fewer benefits to people unable to alter their electricity usage.

National regulators would therefore have to balance economic efficiency against the risk of unevenly distributing network costs.

Ministers face difficult choices

The 29th October meeting will not itself introduce new electricity charges or establish binding national tariff rates.

The Commission’s proposal remains subject to negotiations through the EU legislative process, involving the Council and European Parliament.

Governments will need to consider how much discretion national regulators should retain, whether tariff structures can be made more consistent across the single market and how vulnerable consumers should be protected.

The meeting will also examine longer-term energy security and possible targets for the period after 2030.

For Brussels, the difficulty is that electricity must become sufficiently competitive to encourage industrial investment and electrification, while the infrastructure required to support increased consumption must still be financed.

Whether the proposed reforms eventually reduce electricity bills will depend on their final legislative form, national implementation and the extent to which more efficient grid management produces measurable savings.

European Union negotiators have reached a provisional agreement to revise the rules governing the bloc’s carbon market, increasing the number of emissions allowances that can remain in reserve before being permanently cancelled.

The agreement, reached by the Council and European Parliament on 20th October and announced the following day, raises the invalidation threshold of the EU Emissions Trading System’s market stability reserve from 400 million to 700 million allowances.

The compromise reached by EU negotiators follows months of pressure from energy-intensive industries concerned about carbon prices, electricity costs and competition from manufacturers operating under less restrictive environmental regimes.

The measure requires formal approval before entering into force and forms part of a wider review of the EU’s principal carbon-pricing mechanism.

A larger reserve for future market disruptions

Established in 2019, the market stability reserve was designed to address the accumulation of surplus emissions allowances that had weakened the effectiveness of Europe’s carbon market.

Under the Emissions Trading System, companies in covered sectors must surrender allowances corresponding to their greenhouse gas emissions. The total quantity available is progressively reduced, creating a financial incentive to cut emissions.

The reserve adjusts the supply of allowances entering the market, withdrawing them when there is a substantial surplus and releasing them under specified conditions when supply becomes scarce.

Existing rules also provide for the permanent cancellation of allowances held above a threshold of 400 million.

Under the new agreement, that threshold would increase to 700 million, allowing a larger stock to remain available for potential future release.

The change does not automatically introduce 300 million additional allowances into circulation. Releases would continue to depend on the reserve’s operating rules and market conditions.

According to the Council, more than three billion allowances have been invalidated since the mechanism began operating in 2023.

The Commission initially proposed ending automatic invalidation indefinitely, while the Council’s September negotiating position envisaged a temporary suspension followed by a higher threshold.

The compromise retains invalidation but increases the amount protected from cancellation.

Industry competitiveness enters climate negotiations

The agreement follows growing concern about the cumulative cost of European climate regulation, particularly for steelmaking, chemicals, cement and other energy-intensive sectors. Manufacturers have warned that carbon costs, combined with relatively expensive electricity and industrial gas, complicate investment decisions and weaken their ability to compete internationally.

Brussels must also consider the consequences of production shifting to jurisdictions with lower emissions-related costs, a phenomenon known as carbon leakage. Earlier this year, EU Today examined the Commission’s consideration of changes to industrial protections under the ETS, including the relationship between free allowances and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

The latest reserve agreement does not directly change the allocation of free allowances, the emissions cap or the obligations imposed on individual industrial installations. Its principal effect would be to preserve a larger buffer that could become available if future market conditions trigger the release mechanism.

For manufacturers planning investments extending into the 2030s, the availability of allowances and the future trajectory of carbon prices influence production costs and the commercial case for decarbonisation technologies.

Carbon market figures reveal changing conditions

The European Commission reported in May that the total number of allowances in circulation during 2025 stood at approximately 1.023 billion.

Its annual market stability reserve calculation provided for approximately 190.5 million allowances to be withdrawn from auctions between September 2026 and August 2027.

These withdrawals reflect the existing mechanism for reducing market surpluses. The proposed higher invalidation threshold concerns how many allowances can subsequently remain in reserve rather than being cancelled.

The overall emissions cap will continue to decline under the legislation already governing the ETS.

Consequently, preserving a larger reserve does not remove the long-term constraint on emissions or guarantee lower carbon prices for European industry.

The agreement also concerns the established ETS covering power generation, industry and certain other sectors, rather than the separate ETS2 regime for emissions associated with road transport and buildings.

The latter has generated its own political controversy, as EU Today reported following the October European Council summit.

Broader ETS reform remains unresolved

The Council and Parliament have agreed that the question of gradually reducing the invalidation threshold should be considered during the broader ETS review.

That exercise will address the carbon market’s operation over a longer period, when the declining supply of allowances could create tighter conditions.

The present agreement therefore provides an adjustment to the reserve mechanism without reopening the entire emissions trading framework. Following legal and technical finalisation, the provisional deal must be endorsed by both institutions and formally adopted.

The new 700 million threshold would apply after the legislation takes effect, while the larger review of the ETS continues through the EU legislative process.