This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Mr President, very good afternoon, everybody,

and welcome to the press conference on the electrification action plan and the review of the EU emissions trading system that the College just adopted.

Just to clarify, the College is still ongoing, which means that this is not the College readout,

just the press conference on these files.

There will be a readout that follows later with Executive Vice President Virkkunen and Commissioner McGrath.

And we are sending the press material to you as we speak with links to the legal text. You've been now waiting long enough.

I will pass the floor to Executive Vice President Rivera, followed by Commissioner Hoekstra and Commissioner Jørgensen. Executive Vice President, thank you.

Thank you so much and thanks for joining us today.

I think that we come with very important proposals.

We know we have been experiencing that in the recent weeks.

We use Last Wednesday to give a a smart reminder to all of us on to what extent climate change kills.

Climate change means destruction for the economy, for the society, for the infrastructures.

We are a continent committed to climate neutrality to 2050.

We are a continent that has been driven action for the last 20 years at least.

And it is from that experience that we came up today with update proposals on how to keep on doing, how to keep on driving,

getting the lessons from the previous experience and looking into the future on how we can be more effective.

Because the economics of climate also shape competitiveness,

resilience, and innovation.

We have been working to mainstream climate action across our policies for 20 years,

and today I'm here with the Commissioners Hoekstra and Jørgensen to introduce the emissions trading scheme review.

The electrification action plan and the proposal on futureproof electricity bills, all topics that help in this exercise, ensuring that all those things that we have been achieving in the last years,

but at the very same time that those things that still need to be achieved are within reach.

All initiatives with a single logic to make the right choice to invest in Europe's future prosperity.

To help to build a cleaner, more resilient and more competitive economy rooted in our shared values and common goals. On prices that tell us the truth. Green is cheaper and wiser. Dependency is expensive.

We know that carbonization is the best economic and security strategy for Europe.

It strengthens competitiveness, reduces our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and makes our economy more resilient.

These are the very key elements that are at the backbone of this mandate,

that are at the backbone of the Clean Industrial deal.

Emissions trading schemes make pollution pay its price while generating the revenues needed to invest in our future,

and together they point Europe's economy in one direction towards a future that is cheaper,

greener, fairer, more competitive and more secure. That is what today is about.

The emissions trading system is our flagship climate instrument.

It's been 20 years since we first implemented an emissions trading scheme in Europe.

It works well and provides an efficient manner to show how to invest in a wiser way, and after 20 years,

it is good to draw lessons and ensure it is still helping to keep a driving force for the next 20 years ahead of us.

These last 20 years have shown to what extent the reduction of emissions in the sectors governed by the ETS.

Has been effective, particularly in the power sector.

These 20 years have driven EUR 270 billion in investments for decarbonisation in our continent.

And had led us to a positive ripple effect across the world. But we have also learned important lessons.

These are the lessons that help us to build on what works.

To improve what still needs improvement and to provide a predictable framework for the next 20 years,

rewarding those who move first,

who trust this transformation while giving others the confidence to catch up.

This is a proposal that secures a robust carbon price signal to continue to guide investments,

so to move away from fossil fuels and bring new clean products to our markets.

It keeps putting a price on carbon and reaffirms the confidence to invest in Europe.

It improves the way we can reinvest in an efficient manner the revenues we get to help European industry to innovate,

modernize and lead transition.

The emissions trading system is still a central driver of a whole of economy transition to net zero in alignment with the 90% target of the European Climate Law for 2040.

And it does so in the broader Paris Agreement international context.

From 2036, as said in the Climate Law, we could count on the possibility to count on a limited number of high integrity,

cost effective international credits in case it is needed.

The use of those credits will be subject to a Commission report by 2033.

And using these credits could help to the Paris Agreement architecture,

sending a message of cooperation towards our international partners.

Our vision to have homegrown green energy to avoid fossil fuel dependencies also gives an important step forward today.

We present the electrification action plan to leave barriers to unlock electrification. We have achieved a great deal.

But it is still too little, too slow.

We've done a lot, but much still needs to be done.

Our electrification rate has been stuck at 23% for a decade, and we think we can do better. The electricity plan delivers on three fronts. It sets ambition and predictability. It makes clean choice the default option.

And with the accompanying legal proposal on futureproof electricity bills we are adopting today.

We are setting in new law that we need electricity tax lower than gas,

that we want network charges to be more efficient to drive a more optimized energy system.

And that it is important to accelerate the rollout of smart meters to at least 50% by 2030 and 75% by 2033.

We commit to adopt a framework to phase out the €100 billion being dedicated to subsidize fossil fuels.

We are convinced that this is the way forward.

We think that this deserves the attention of people to count on the right schemes,

on the right tools to make it easy.

Thinking of socialism schemes, the use of the AIT, the industrial industrial decarbonization bank and the investment booster sought to support to help into these very same goals,

including some innovative mechanisms such as the Clean Heat market mechanism.

We can make it better and we are convinced that we Europeans not only have the choice to do it,

but the capacity, the strength to succeed. Every year of delay.

Is another year of higher costs of additional vulnerabilities, another year of exposure to crisis we did not choose,

another year that could be missing opportunities for Europe and the Europeans.

So we are convinced that we are ready to keep on doing.

Commissioner Hoekstra will introduce the topic which is of the interest of the room together with the electricity action plan. Thank you very much, Theresa.

Ladies and gentlemen, a very good afternoon to all of you.

Today's proposal on the ETS brings together 3 key goals. Sustained truly ambitious climate action.

Much more competitiveness and a huge boost for our independence.

It advances climate action,

but at the same time it transforms the ETS into a genuine engine for innovation and investment and reindustrializing Europe for the clean economy of the future.

It also helps to significantly level the playing field for companies and industries across the European Union.

Strengthen the business case for made in the EU.

Follows our simplification logic, cutting unnecessary red tape, and if we deliver on this plan,

it would literally mean hundreds of billions in additional investments on European soil.

But before I dive in, please allow me to consider what the ETS is and what it has done.

No other policy instrument in Europe has helped to reduce emissions on the same scale as the ETS. It is a phenomenal asset.

In our climate toolbox and if you look at the numbers,

you would find that since 2005 the ETS has helped cut emissions by roughly 50%,

50% in the sectors that it covers.

And that is important because it helps to tackle the huge climate problem we are facing.

It helps because it reduces the dramatic dependencies we have on fossil fuels that we need to bring into Europe.

Without the ETS, Europe would now consume 100 BCM more gas,

making us even more vulnerable than we are already today.

And of course what it has also done, it is a much needed revenue generator,

and we have used that to then invest in innovation and industrial decarbonisation,

and the number is roughly 270 billion since 2013. So a truly great design.

But let's also acknowledge that it comes with 3 weaknesses we have insufficiently anticipated.

First, the world has changed considerably with key European industries facing an unlevel playing field. Heavy state subsidies, dumping.

Dubious labor conditions abroad, all of that have wrecked havoc in key sectors of our economy.

And we've rectified the balance to some extent with changes to CEA.

But there is more that we have to do within the domain of the ETS and beyond.

Second, a great deal of companies have made investments in a clean future.

We also have to acknowledge that others have not done enough to decarbonise in Europe and have invested rather outside of Europe. And that in our view, cannot stand.

Third, if you look at the picture of what happens with the money,

Member States receive roughly 80% of all the revenues from the ETS.

But of that 80%, less than 10% has been spent on industrial decarbonisation, and that was always the promise.

It was not a tax, it was an engine for industrial decarbonization.

So industry in our view rightly demands that more significantly more should flow back to decarbonize these sectors.

In terms of the main elements, first on the direction and the ambition.

Today's proposal sets a trajectory that is fully in line, and I would like to underline it fully in line with the EU's 2040 climate goals,

the 90% that we have set before, so that makes it truly ambitious,

and yet it rewards investments that have been made.

Second, we are adopting a more business friendly and, may I say so,

savvy approach which recognizes those who have invested in the clean transition.

If you're an economic first mover, if you are a frontrunner in the transition, You will continue to be rewarded,

and our objective is to boost the industries at the heart of the European economy.

We'll do so by extending free allocations after 2030,

but then in return for companies investing in decarbonisation in Europe.

That is one of the key differences with before free allocation. Does not mean free cash.

100% of the free allowances will need to be invested in Europe in decarbonisation.

This addresses in our view, the problem of companies, some of them are doing that,

pocketing the free allocations and then selling them on the market and using the money elsewhere.

The next point to this is that Member States will also be required to spend 50% of their national ETS revenues on investments to decarbonise ETS sectors,

and alongside all of this, we will dramatically ramp up investments in innovation and in decarbonisation.

The EU's ETS Innovation Fund will continue to support first commercial applications of truly innovative technologies in a wide range of sectors.

On top of that,

there will be a new industrial decarbonisation bank with €100 billion in funding going towards industrial decarbonisation all across Europe at scale.

Part of that is a 30 billion ETS investment booster that will be available already before 2030.

And when all of that is combined, we're turning the ETS truly into an innovation and investment engine.

To make Europe's industry fit for a clean future.

Third, the ETS will cover more sectors, helping to drive the clean transition truly across the economy,

all in all, hundreds of billions in the next decade.

On maritime, we will be channeling a lot more money back to the sector.

About 15 billion a year, which is roughly 8 times the current level.

We will also be giving the maritime industry a solid push to get its decarbonisation efforts off the ground with support for sustainable maritime fuel,

and in turn this will help to establish a pan-European market for refining these fuels. We're also bringing smaller ships into scope.

With some deliberate exemptions, for example, for ferries.

Finally, we've introduced measures which show how strongly we stand for a level playing field.

We're adding more ports in the southern Mediterranean to tackle ETS evasion, and we're not asking anything from anyone that we're not asking from ourselves,

but we do want to make sure that garbage is not being leaked.

Done on aviation There is One of the few,

some would say the only major sector where emissions are going up rather than going down.

At the same time, the EU faces a level playing field.

Currently, the ETS only covers the EEA, and quite a few countries subsidize their airlines in ways we do not.

And that is why as of 2029 carbon pricing will apply to any flight that lands within 5000 kilometers of the geographic center of Europe.

That means, for example,

that a flight now from let's say Brussels to one of the Greek islands will be treated in the same way as a flight arriving in the neighborhood but then outside of the EU.

We're also planning to channel much more money back to the sector.

We're talking about 15 billion between 2029 and 2040 as opposed to 1.5 billion currently over an eight-year period.

And just as we have done for maritime, we will give the aviation sector a huge boost,

as they've rightfully asked for, for sustainable aviation fuel. Also all private jets.

All private jets either departing or landing will be covered.

If you ask yourself why a family flying again from Brussels to for example Benidorm,

paying ETS for the tickets for 2 adults and 2 kids should pay ETS while someone flying in a private jet can go up and forth and not pay a single time.

That we should change and that should be stopped.

Municipal waste incineration, another area covered by the ETS or in the future covered by ETS, and the idea here is to encourage waste prevention and recycling,

making it more cost effective than incineration and giving a real boost to the circular economy.

Of course, not everything can be recycled, and when that's the case,

incineration is accepted, provided the carbon is captured.

We will also add 250 million tons of permanent domestic carbon removals into the ETS,

and that will give EU industry a bit more breathing space and help kickstart the market for removals.

Ladies and gentlemen, in today's ETS proposal, we truly take a major step forward. We're bringing together once again.

Ambitious climate action with competitiveness, opening the door to Europe's reindustrialization,

making a real push for energy independence.

We're modernizing it, we're strengthening it, and we will do it differently for our industry.

While the ETS is important, of course we will need to fix. EU's industry more at large.

We simply need outside of this domain to continue the quest for simplification.

Completion of our internal market, capital markets union, and an end to the unlevel playing field too many of our companies are facing.

We're convinced that along with all these measures,

today's review is the best way forward once again for climate competitiveness and independence. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Jørgensen. Thank you.

Since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

We've paid in Europe more than €50 billion. More for our energy.

That's more than €50 billion extra without receiving any extra energy, not one single molecule.

Extra This shows us just how vulnerable we are.

It shows us just how economically unsustainable it is to be dependent. Of outside energy. We need our own homegrown energy.

We need that also to be leaders in the fight against climate change we're experiencing.

One of the hottest summers, if not the hottest summer ever.

People are actually dying from the heat waves. And we need it for competitiveness reasons.

We need to replace the Black,

expensive polluting molecules with cheap, clean, homegrown electrons.

And for that it's not enough to just produce more renewables and more nuclear.

That is certainly necessary, but it's not enough.

We also need those electrons to actually be used in our economies. To heat our homes, our buildings. To drive our cars. To produce in our industry. So this is why we are today.

Proposing to double the electrification rate in Europe. This is not a small thing.

It took us from the Stone Age till now to get to 23%, and now we want to double it in 14 years. But it's necessary.

And we also think it is both plausible and realistic. How to do it.

First of all, we need to drive electricity prices down.

As things stand, electricity and fossil fuels are not on a level playing field.

Fossils are heavily subsidized and wouldn't survive in a truly competitive market.

We need to stop funding our dependencies with taxpayers' money.

First, we double down on the deployment of homegrown clean energy because that is the cheapest and most reliable source of energy we have.

Second, We foster a better use of the infrastructure that already exists.

Network charges, which make up a significant part of the energy bills, must reward flexibility.

They must encourage a more efficient use of our grid,

and they must enable consumers to use energy when it's cheaper.

This will avoid unnecessary and costly grid expansions and unlock cheaper network costs for energy intensive industries.

In other words, to allow for a faster penetration of cheaper clean energy,

we need to make our electricity consumption smarter and more flexible.

This is why we want at least 50% of final customers to be equipped with smart meters by 2030.

And we've set out to achieve 200 gigawatts of storage capacity by 2030. We also want the electricity.

We also want that electricity is taxed less than gas.

This is a low hanging fruit to reduce electricity bills.

At the same time, later this year, we will propose measures to progressively phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

Public money should be spent on what benefits us, not what harms us.

The 2 big goal of our plan is to roll out more electric technologies.

In our homes, in the place we live and work, and in the way we travel. These technologies are efficient. They are effective.

And many of them are being made in Europe right now. We don't have to wait.

We have to make these technologies more affordable and more accessible.

In our factories, electrification is already technically feasible for 60% of industrial energy demand.

Electric furnaces and e-boilers offer new opportunities for efficiency and savings.

We will help industries to make the switch with sector-specific road maps for electrification as well as improved access to diversified low carbon energy.

The revised emission trading system will be key here.

It will support the decarbonisation of industry by channeling investments into emission reductions, including electrification.

And with the €100 billion industrial decarbonization bank, including the €30 billion ETS investment booster,

we will further spur investments into industrial electrification, grid connection infrastructure, as well as storage.

In our homes, offices, and public buildings,

we aim to significantly increase the rate of heat pump installations by 2030.

The switch from gas boilers to heat pumps can cut the average EU household's heating bill by up to 60%.

While of course also helping to cool homes during the summer.

To make this happen,

we will help de-risk and finance investments and help consumers with transparent and comparable information and.

And we will continue to support the rollout of electric cars and other vehicles.

We've set out how member states can make these and other technologies more accessible through social leasing schemes, for example.

These schemes are already a success in a number of member states.

It is time to spread this success across Europe.

By doing these things,

we can save millions on fossil fuel imports and we can invest in cleaner and more efficient technologies while creating millions of jobs.

Clean electrification value chains already employ over 4 million people across the EU.

By driving demand for EVs, heat pumps, and other technologies, we can multiply these jobs substantially.

So to conclude, The message to Europe today is very clear. Choose electricity over fossil fuels. Choose green electrons over black molecules.

Choose lower builds, cleaner air, homegrown supplies,

choose transformation over stagnation, stability over volatility, security over vulnerability.

To put it simply, choose the future over the past, because the age of fossil fuels is coming to an end,

and for Europe, the future is clean energy and electrification. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Executive Vice President, thank you, Commissioners.

Let's move on to your questions and the answers of the College members Fred, Philippe and then Nico. Yes, iO from carbon pulse.

I'd be curious to know, what, I'm here.

I'd be curious to know what is the the figure for emission reductions expected from ETS sectors by 2040.

For 2030, the figures, the figure was 62%.

So I'd like to know what it is now.

And second, related to this,

what does it mean then in terms of the burden that will now have to be picked up by non-ETS sectors because there's a second leg of climate legislation coming later this year on forestry,

on road transport.

So, yeah, what does that mean for them? It's for me I guess.

So first, to give you the numbers for the first five years, 2030 to 2035,

the linear reduction factor, if that is the number you're looking for, is 3.7.

For the second five years it is 1.7, but that is of course combined with up to 2% of international credits.

You might recall the conversation we've had on international credits where we sat.

We're going to be that serious about our climate goals of 90%, but we allow for 5% of international credits in that goal. That is not mandatory.

It is an option and we will pool that option if in 2035 it is clear that it is cost effective.

We're already working, of course, towards creating that option because otherwise you don't have.

What is important to note is that this is fully in line with the numbers I just gave you are fully in line with the ambition that we have set in the climate laws,

so they're completely 90% proof.

If you were then to compare the ETS sectors with the other sectors, that's exactly the same balance that we're getting here,

so we're not asking more for the ETS from the ETS sectors, we're also not asking less.

And that is also where that 2% number comes from, right?

Bear with me, but if you want to do the mathematics, if you take the total ETS sectors, roughly 40% of the total, so that gives you 2%,

up to 2% within the scope, and the other 3% of flexibilities are then outside of the scope, so in the other sectors. Philip.

Thank you, Filipe desulvin with the Norwegian Media Anahi Oklima.

As you said, Commissioner Hoekstra, you're choosing a more business friendly and business savvy approach, notably by extending, the, the free allowance regime for, for industry and Have,

have you thought about the danger that this might be a signal of,

of rewarding industries that have not been doing their job of cutting emissions and investing in decarbonization? Thank you. And the opposite is true.

So if anything, and if you look at the numbers that will back that up,

our climate ambition will increase in the next decade rather than decrease.

So there was never the plan by the Commission to continue with a 4.4 linear reduction factor.

The goal was to be even more ambitious in the next decade.

In the decade we're currently in in the decade from 2040 to 2050,

and that is why we arrived at 90% emission reductions by 2040.

Now what is true is that many governments and literally hundreds of companies come to us with their positions,

and some have been saying, look, we want to completely stay the course.

Others have asked to weaken the system again, others have asked for more flexibilities.

Our job, in my view, my conviction, is to carve out a path that is somewhere in the middle,

some sort of a compromise between those opposing positions, and again, sometimes it's companies in the same sector that give opposing views.

Our job is to carve out a course that does justice to our significant climate ambition,

takes into account.

The opportunity for businesses, those who have already made the investments and those who we would like to do it,

to then indeed invest in Europe, to level the playing field and to make sure that the money you invest in Europe is being rewarded.

So the key, the key difference of this proposal compared to the current decade is the conditionality.

Indeed we allow for a bit more flexibility, but the money needs to be invested in Europe,

and that is true for the money in terms of free allowances we give to the companies.

That's also true for 50%, so 50 cents per euro on the money we provide the governments with.

And if you add that up, you see that that is a complete game changer in terms of investments in decarbonisation in industries specifically in Europe,

and that's exactly what we need. Nico And Denmark.

Thank you so much, Nikolaus Kurmayer for your active.

Commissioner Hoekstra, at a time of global backsliding against climate action, you're pushing back the EU's climate,

or let's call it the phase out of coal and just fossil fuel use in industry and the power sector by close to a decade.

Do you think that this is the right signal to send at this time?

And speaking of ambition, Commissioner Jørgensen,

I think it was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that promised an ambitious electrification target.

It just so happens that your 46% falls short even of the Commission's own modeling for a 2040 target where it foresaw 50% electrification. I'm sorry, that's not true.

OK, that's very, I'll, I'll, I'll not be shorter, but, but I, I, I do wanna provide you with,

with, with a bit of context because in essence, the answer is, is, is the same, right? I think reality is, reality is different.

There has been also in my conversations with member states and sometimes with political groups there sometimes the tendency to almost with religious vigor look at the linear reduction factor and see that as the ultimate instrument that would determine whether you're ambitious or too ambitious or not ambitious enough. The reality really is different.

What we put on the table with the 3.7 in the first five years, the 1.7 in the five years thereafter,

and it's deliberate that we do way more in the five first years than in the second,

we are realistic about that the later the emissions come, the harder they are to decrease.

Secondly, it shows how ambitious we are because we do the bulk of the work in the beginning.

These numbers are completely climate law proof,

so it is simply not the case that you would need to continue with the current linear reduction factor.

In order to reach your targets, and again, the big, the big,

big add on compared to what we have today is that we make way more work of investments on European soil.

Mechanisms that help support these industries, level playing field adjustments which I think are all critical to make this happen,

because otherwise if we just have the industry ship out, everyone loses.

The stuff will not be produced cleaner outside of Europe,

so climate would lose at the same time business would lose and people would lose their jobs.

The future needs to be that we produce stuff in Europe but in a much cleaner and better way than we do today. Sorry.

All right, let's, let's take a, Kieran, you had your hand up? No?

No, I'm sorry, I promised you the mark, and then I will go online.

I will take Kate and Virginie and then come back to the room.

So Kate and Virginie, after, after Mark's question, get ready. Mr President, good afternoon. By now, Mark Baberkorn Vosrand.

It is a question for Commissioner Jurgensen, because it's about your proposal to tax electricity less than gas,

but you know that tax laws require unanimity.

So politically speaking, how realistic is this proposal and If not,

because it is one of the essential elements of the electrification plan. Thanks.

Well, let me start by A little bit of the reasoning behind this proposal. 97.

Billion euros is what is used in subsidies every year for fossils.

It's It's a little bit like the doctor that tries to help a patient with diabetes by prescribing sugar. It's really not rational.

And that's direct subsidies, so we want to get rid of that, and that is a part of this proposal.

At the same time As if that wasn't bad enough,

we also have tax systems in most member states where Electricity is taxed higher than gas. Some countries it's 4% higher.

This is obviously Very rational, and we need to change that.

So now we've put forward this proposal to change that.

Let's see what the support from member states are.

This is a part of a package that also deals with network tariffs, so it's not just taxation policy and therefore the decision making procedures are a little bit different,

and some of the decisions can be made with a qualified majority.

But I obviously hope that we can have a very broad support for this because really I don't,

even though there are of course differences of opinion.

In member states, between member states, internally in member states,

I don't really see a very broad opposition against the direction of travel.

And if you are for the direction of travel,

then surely we should also have economic incentives that support this instead of having economic incentives that support the opposite direction. Kate, are you ready? Hi, do you hear me? Yes. OK, thanks. Kate Waddell from Reuters. I have two questions for Commissioner Hoekstra.

Commissioner, have you delayed the the phase out of free allocation for CBAM sectors?

And if so, does that mean that CBAM's phase in is also delayed?

And secondly,

how did you decide that 5000 kilometers was going to be the cutoff for the extension to international flights?

It just misses reaching the US and we know that the US blocked the EU trying to extend into international flights a decade ago.

So is that why you chose that threshold? Thanks.

So maybe first on the CBEM proposal,

and of course the heart of the proposal is the one that we have recently managed to get a general approach on in terms of exports.

We're adding a bit of flexibility here, some 15%, but again the heart of the proposal about the changes in the scope where we do much more,

the changes against circumvention are in that other proposal.

And of course you know that the simplification effort we have done already by last year.

Then in terms of aviation, and once again aviation is one of the sectors where emissions unfortunately go up.

Secondly,

we see a non-level playing field with some supporting their airlines in ways that we don't do and we think is also not justified.

Also there has been a clear demand from the sector to invest much more,

much more in sustainable aviation fuels, which we're doing once again with a factor 5 to 6, 5600%.

Of course, if you're trying to calibrate all the various factors that play a role the economics, the level playing field, competition, whether it is fair or unfair,

carbon leakage and where that is going to diplomacy, and you add it all up,

you try to articulate what does most justice to such a package.

So that is why we have come up with the range of 5000 kilometers measured from the middle of Europe.

Secondly, there is the lack of private jets.

Private jets, and you know they're not in Corsa.

All private jets, whether they're inbound or outbound,

and whether they're from far away or from within, will be subject to the ETS. Virgin Mr Louise? Yes, so, can I speak in French? Yes. I have a few small questions.

I didn't quite understand the answer you gave to my colleague on With this reform of the ETS,

what Reduction of CO2 can we expect?

I mean how does that changed from what we had before this reform?

Now you're saying that member states would have invested half of their ETS revenues that they get from decarbonisation,

but that strikes me as something that they should already have done, but they haven't done it.

So why do you think they're going to do more than they have in the past?

And then another question you say for aviation it's 5000 kilometers from the center of Europe, the center of Europe. Well, what city is that exactly? People.

So, so, so, so first, maybe on that, on, on what, what exact sector you will then or city you will then land in,

we should jointly look at the map, but of course there, there is currently, there is a situation that is, that is untenable.

It, it, it is hard to justify, right, that when you fly again from Brussels to,

for example, a city in southern Italy or southern Spain.

You pay ETS, but when you fly to the other side of the Mediterranean, you don't.

Same, I gave you the example of the Greek islands compared to their neighborhood or for example the Canary Islands compared to North Africa.

From a level playing field perspective, but also from a climate perspective,

it makes sense to actually cast the net a bit broader.

At the same time, we're not asking anything from anyone that we're not asking from ourselves,

so I think that is a pretty clear.

Understood your first question correctly on the sectors, so how does this work?

First, there is the lack where we give emissions or where we give free allowances back to companies,

and they then need to invest on European soil.

That's a 100% investment, but it is up to them in what specific installation they decide to invest. So that is important to note.

We're not going to prescribe it needs to be planned X or Planned Y.

The second leg at the 50% that comes from the Member States,

their Member States have a lot of flexibility on how and where to invest, whether that is in a cluster, whether they are pooling money.

By the way, companies can also pool money,

but it is mandatory to make sure that these investments are being made in the sectors that have been providing the ETS.

Because otherwise you would still be in the same situation as today that the money doesn't go back to the industrial sectors that are actually providing the money.

All right, let's, go back into the room and let's take, David,

you've been asking for a floor, and then, Beatrice afterwards, no, you, sorry, yes.

Yeah, David Diego from Argus Media, another question on aviation, sorry.

So if Elon Musk or, or Bill Gates flies from New York in the private jet to Davos,

or the airport near Davos, is that included in the ETS?

And then secondly, there's support for SAFs, but what are SAFs?

Is that, does that include biofuels or is it sustainable advanced fuels?

What, what kind of things, hydrogen, and how do you see that advancing in the future? Thanks.

So once again, all inbound and outbound flights, regardless of who is in the plane, of course, is being covered.

Secondly, the sustainable aviation fuels is indeed a mix.

ISAF, we're still in the process of developing this.

What we're doing with this is we're giving a huge impulse to that market because one of the complaints is that people are saying,

look, there is a chicken and an egg problem.

Is there not enough demand or is there not enough supply?

With this market signal and with the CEF that is currently already available, at least until 2030.

Most experts are saying, well, frankly speaking, to 2034.

We are absolutely convinced that we give this market a very significant impulse and once again that SAF can be used for everyone who is leaving European airspace regardless of the exact location or destination or length towards the destination. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you very much Silvia Bruno from Elpe newspaper.

This goes on the electrification action plan and the nuclear part.

So in the communication use on the nuclear there's not a lot of mentioning but there's some of them and the Commission is backing the pressure of lifetime extension of existing reactors unless uneconomal or incompatible with higher safety standards.

So one concrete question is because Spain has just, this, given its green light to prolong one of its plans,

AAA, so I was wondering if you think this goes in line.

With this plan, so I was, I was hoping you might comment something on that.

And also, Is there an estimate of EU nuclear plants that might also prolong its life?

I mean, does the Commission have some figures on what would benefit, on this? Thank you.

So, so yes, the, the plan mentions both nuclear and renewable, but,

but you will also notice that there's not a whole lot on how to produce more because that's not the That's not the objective of this plan.

We have many plans, many efforts to deal with how we produce more clean energy.

This is about how the clean energy that is produced is being used.

Nonetheless, just to answer you very briefly your question, that the energy mix of member states are of course totally national competencies,

so I don't have any comments to that.

If we look at the projections on how much nuclear we will have in our energy system in the future. Right now we have 98 gigawatts.

It's estimated that that will go up around 10 gigawatts within the next decade.

How much it will go up after that will be very dependent on how many small module reactors will actually be deployed and the different prognosis that we see.

Covers quite a wide range, let's put it like that.

So it's very uncertain to say, but some of the highest that we've seen is around 150 gigawatts.

So of course, on the one hand you can say 150 gigawatts is a lot.

On the other hand you can say, OK, we deploy.

85 to 90 gigawatts of new renewables, so that's on top of what we already have every year.

And right now nuclear is 23% of our electricity consumption, and as the electricity consumption goes up and and nuclear doesn't go up to a larger degree than what I just described,

then of course the percentage will be lower in the future. You go ahead and then Ian. Hi, Rebecca Downie from Carbon Pulse.

You said that you will review whether to extend the scope to departing flights, in 2032 if Corcia has been strengthened.

So I'm wondering what needs to happen to Curcia.

How are you going to push for that because at the moment it's targeting carbon neutral growth, so not even carbon neutrality.

So, what action will the EU take, for this?

Well we We have, as you know, we have been a strong advocate for an international solution.

Few sectors are as international as aviation by definition,

so by far the best would be to do something with everyone involved.

The jury is out whether Corcia will deliver as of 2027.

You know that we start this phasing in and this data collection and ideally the first steps,

but in this geopolitical landscape it is also uncertain what exactly will be delivered in the early 2030s. So taking this step, which is ambitious.

And also pragmatic, which you know takes a bit of these things already into account, but also gives a fair and full chance to Curcia delivering,

I think is the right balance, and I don't know exactly where we will be in 2032.

I would hope we will manage to deliver Courcila with our partners. That would be the best.

That will be the best in terms of level playing field.

That will be by far the best for climate, but the future is uncertain.

So we will review it and if indeed that global system will be put in place,

then there is no need of course anymore for your national or your domestic measurements.

Ian Thank you very much, Ian, from the, Alan Johnson from the FT.

The ETS came under a lot of pressure earlier this year in the context of high energy prices,

and President von der Leyen mentioned this review as part of the response to that.

So question on that, does this review make energy costs cheaper for industries reliant on fossil fuels,

than compared to the current trajectory? So. Thank you very much. Who wants to start?

Thank you, thank you so much for the question.

I could take this opportunity also to reply to the question on 46% of electrification target being fully consistent with our goal,

it's already expressed and it was already expressed.

In the impact assessment being issued in 2024 on the goals for 2050 and 2040,

so I don't want anyone to leave this room thinking that it is not consistent with this.

There was a range between 43 and 55,

so 46 is fully consistent with our goal to reduce emissions 90% by 2040.

On your issue,

my sense is that the main message that is Rooted in these packages that we adopt today is that yes it makes sense to work at the very same time on the electrification plan on the full deployment of the main key points to get an increase of our electrification rate in the final.

Energy used to ensure that also for industrials and in the context of the ETS energy is more affordable and I think that this is not just related to the ETS review,

but it is also part of the ETS review.

The thing that we count and we stress the carbon price in an updated manner in this in this review is not coming along.

I think that it is it is well surrounded by the different elements that are part of the of the of the package in the ETS the booster so to facil.

Early investments coming from the industry to be more efficient in the use of energy,

to be more efficient in the use of technologies that may lower the emissions.

It comes along with the clean industrial state aid framework so to support this transformation and it comes along with the whole policy dealing with energy transition,

including the boost of homegrown.

Solutions and upgrade of our infrastructure,

a much more efficient use of the infrastructure that already exists and much more interconnected Europe.

So the overall assessment is yes, it will be more affordable, more stable, and the different recommendations given to the member states,

including the use of taxation and making easy for any final user the right decision could help into this lowering. Cost of energy for European industries.

Can I just add, because If we look at what constitutes an energy bill.

An electricity bill, so that's the production of the energy.

We know for a fact that renewables are much cheaper than the fossil alternatives.

IEA has estimated that we save around €33 billion every year on newly deployed renewables. Now that's an average year.

This year is going to be even higher because we are deploying more.

It's becoming cheaper, even cheaper, and the fossils are becoming more expensive.

The second part is of course the ETS, that's around 11% of the bill on average,

and Rob has elaborated on on on how the effects will be from this proposal. Then there's the transmission costs.

Also,

a big part of the bill and what we try to do with this energy package is also to regulate. What we used to recommend.

So we used to recommend to member states that they have a cost effective system.

So that we exploit the flexibility in the energy systems.

So that energy is used when it's cheapest and where it's cheapest.

Now, not that many member states have actually listened to those recommendations and done that,

so now we will indeed regulate it. And finally, of course, taxes.

Big part of the bill in many member states and here we say quite clearly that needs to change and we need the taxes on electricity to go down.

So all in all this will lead to lower prices of electricity.

You will forgive me for not building on the colleagues other than that, I very much agree with them, but I, I do think I left one question hanging in the air by the French journalist that was online and,

and, and she asked also what is the expected CO2 emission effect of this new scheme until 2040 compared to what was there before.

And just to be very clear, this is the first time we're detailing the road forward.

So what is the history in up to 2023, we had a target of 55% fit for 55 for 2030,

and we had a net zero target for 2050.

In September 202.023, we announced for the first time we had a conversation with Parliament.

I know that because it was the date of my first hearing, that we were going for a 90% target by 2040.

In this Commission we have solidified that and we have come up with the legislation.

Therefore we now have a 90% target for 2040 with 5% international credits as part of it.

Now we are detailing the road towards 2040.

The ETS is a large part of it, and the trajectory of the ETS is the conversation we're having today,

again with a very steep ambition level, particularly in the first five years, but also continuing thereafter.

Introducing up to 2% of credits and making sure that ETS delivers its full fair share in terms of the climate ambition we have articulated last year in 2040.

Madam President, we'll take the final question from Nicola, who's been patiently waiting. Go ahead.

Mr President, Nicholas Burns from MNex and a question about competition for the Executive Vice President.

Yesterday you took enforcement action under the Digital Markets Act against Google. The company reacted quite strongly.

It said that the actions you took would put the privacy of European users in danger,

would put their security at risk, and would even put Europe's national security under threat.

So I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that.

Thank you, thank you so much, for the question.

I guess that, it is interesting and it is important that Google takes care about privacy and about security.

I think that this is, this is key.

The main point is whether this argument is being used to prevent others to get access to the data that is already anonymized and is managed in a very secure manner.

For reasons that go far beyond from what it is being explicitly said.

This is what we have been working for a very long while together with them, and this is, of course, what it is part of the specifications,

including the fact that at the very last moment in case it is needed, it is not only that it is anonymous.

It is that we will assess case by case together the Commission with Google itself whether there may be anyone willing to access to this data that may pose a question of a risk,

an eventful risk of security.

So our assessment is that more than ever and as usual,

as part of our duty, as part of our core mission.

We pay much attention and we strengthen our capacities to ensure that everything is secure and that consumers can be.

Absolutely reassured on the on the privacy of the data that they share and the security services of any member state or any other company can be reassured on this very fact. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Executive Vice President, thank you, Commissioners.

Next up, the rule of law college readout and press conference with Virkkunen and Magula in 10 minutes.

Thank you, everybody, have a nice afternoon. Thank you.