This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

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, 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 probably, 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 that.

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.

Philippe 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 have 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 then Mark 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 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 are 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 have to need to continue with the current linear reduction factor.

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

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 Vosk.

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 Abnett 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 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, so 5600% more.

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.

And 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. Virginie Helias. Louis.

Yes, so Louis, 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 to the center of Europe. What what city is that exactly? People.

So, so, so, so first, maybe 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 Plan 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, Beatriz afterward. 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 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 EP's 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 unecon economical 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 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 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, every year, and right now, nuclear is 23% of our electricity consumption,

and as the electricity consumption goes up and and nuclear doesn't doesn't go up to a larger degree than what I just described,

then of course the percentage will be lower in the future. 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 Curcia 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, 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 Cura 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 yet also pragmatic,

which takes a bit of these things already into 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 Curcila with our partners. That would be the best.

That would 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? Coffee. 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 facilitate 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 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.

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 Vodka 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, sorry, 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.

Mr 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 bracing 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. Thank you.