This report covers Parliamentary Questions or answers published between 27 October and 2 November 2025. The key themes addressed by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) include the environmental impact of renewables, the functioning of energy grids and markets, the implementation and repercussions of the Emissions Trading System (ETS), the future of the automotive industry, the security of strategic supply chains, and the governance of the EU’s climate and energy plans. In total, this report summarises 19 Parliamentary Questions, of which 8 have received a response from the European Commission and 11 are awaiting a reply.
❗ Marine Pollution from Offshore Wind Turbines
In question E-003481/25, submitted on 9 September 2025, Mathilde Androuët (PfE) highlighted a study on environmental pollution from offshore wind farms, including leaching heavy metals and microplastics. The MEP asked why such documented risks are not fully taken into account in EU policies and authorisations. In a response on 30 October 2025, Commissioner Roswall clarified that authorising renewable energy projects is the responsibility of Member States, who must ensure compliance with EU legislation. The Commission noted that its Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy aims to ensure environmental considerations are taken into account and that it supports research to better understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of such projects.
❗ Ensuring Compliance with Cross-Zonal Electricity Trade Rules
Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) submitted question P-003600/25 on 17 September 2025, raising concerns about high electricity prices in South-Eastern Europe, which the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) warned could have been avoided if the ‘70% rule’ for cross-zonal network capacity had been respected. The MEP asked what measures the Commission plans to implement to ensure compliance and improve interconnection. In his reply on 31 October 2025, Commissioner Jørgensen stated that full implementation of the 70% requirement by the end of 2025 is crucial for lower energy prices. He added that the Commission constantly monitors progress, will work with Member States to implement the 2024 Electricity Market Design Reform, and noted that the upcoming European Grids Package should target structural challenges to improve cross-border interconnection.
❓ Environmental Concerns Over Electrical Substation in Ferentillo, Italy
Ignazio Roberto Marino (Verts/ALE) submitted question E-004066/2025 on 15 October 2025 regarding plans to build an electrical substation in a Natura 2000 Special Protection Area in Ferentillo, Umbria. The MEP raised concerns about the project’s potential harm to biodiversity, its location in an area with high hydrogeological and seismic risk, and lack of public transparency. The question asks if the Commission will check the project’s compliance with EU environmental rules, the Aarhus Convention, and Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principles. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Impact of Deficit Rules on ETS2 Revenue Spending
In question E-004097/2025 submitted on 17 October 2025, Sara Matthieu (Verts/ALE) highlighted an issue raised by the Belgian climate administration concerning the spending of ETS2 revenues. The MEP noted that under the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD), revenues are registered when allowances are surrendered, not when emissions occur, potentially delaying support for households by a year. The question asks the Commission to confirm if 2027 revenues will only be available in 2028 for Member States wishing to avoid increasing their deficit, and whether adjusting the MGDD in line with European System of Accounts (ESA) rules could resolve the issue. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Repercussions of Extending the ETS to the Maritime Sector
Anna Maria Cisint and other MEPs from the PfE group submitted question E-004174/2025 on 22 October 2025, arguing that the extension of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) to the maritime sector undermines the competitiveness of EU ports and the viability of island transport routes. The MEPs asked if the Commission will propose corrective measures to the ETS Directive, ensure all ETS resources are allocated to the maritime sector, and consider suspending the extension until a global IMO scheme is adopted. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ ETS Maritime Derogation for Outermost Regions
On 22 October 2025, Sérgio Gonçalves and André Rodrigues (S&D) submitted question E-004153/2025 concerning the application of the EU ETS exemption for the EU’s outermost regions. The MEPs reported that maritime operators are required to surrender allowances for the first leg of a multi-leg journey if it includes an intermediate stop in a non-outermost region port, even if the final destination is an outermost region. They asked the Commission to clarify if this practice is in line with its interpretation of the rules, as it risks increasing costs for residents in these regions. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Timeline for Decoupling Energy Prices from Gas
A large group of MEPs from the ECR group, led by Mariateresa Vivaldini, submitted question E-004126/2025 on 20 October 2025. Referencing a 2015 Parliament text, they asked the Commission whether it intends to implement the decoupling of electricity from gas prices to support energy-intensive industries and reduce costs for businesses and households. The MEPs also inquired about the potential timeline for such a measure and its implementation. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ EU Funding for Energy Infrastructure 2021-2035
In question E-003573/2025 submitted on 17 September 2025, Morten Løkkegaard (Renew) asked the Commission for a breakdown of total EU funding used and expected to be used for energy infrastructure investments in the 2021-2027 MFF period, separated by sustainable energy and fossil fuels. The MEP also requested an estimate for expected investments in these categories for the 2028-2035 MFF period based on the Commission’s proposal. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Impacts of the 2040 Climate Target
In a response on 30 October 2025 to question E-003680/25, Commissioner Hoekstra addressed the implications of the EU’s 2040 climate target. The Commissioner stated that the decarbonisation of the EU economy implies a steep reduction of fossil fuel imports and associated costs. He noted that the implications of the 2040 target at the Member State level will depend on the design of future climate policies and national implementation choices. The Commission’s analysis for post-2030 policy proposals will be accompanied by impact assessments and will embed national policies as expressed in the National Energy and Climate Plans to the extent technically possible.
❓ Details on National Climate-Neutrality Plans
Jacek Ozdoba (ECR) submitted question E-004161/2025 on 22 October 2025, requesting specific data related to climate-neutrality plans (CNPs). The MEP asked for the total amount of emission reductions proposed in each Member State, the investment required to implement these plans, and the savings that facilities can expect from their implementation. A response from the Commission is pending.
Automotive Transition
❗ Commission Stance on 2035 Combustion Engine Ban
In question E-003351/25, submitted on 1 September 2025, Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE) described the 2035 ban on new combustion engine vehicles as harmful, threatening Europe’s productive fabric and jobs. Citing warnings from automotive industry leaders, the MEP asked for the timeline of the target’s revision and whether the Commission would assess its impact on employment and competitiveness. In his reply on 29 October 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra confirmed the Commission has accelerated work on the review, with a public consultation having closed on 10 October 2025. He stated an impact assessment is underway that will explore various options, taking into account technological developments and the need for an economically viable and socially fair transition, with a legislative proposal to follow.
❗ Protecting Automotive Jobs Amidst Transition
Erik Kaliňák (NI) submitted question E-003511/25 on 10 September 2025, calling the 2035 ban on combustion engine cars “irresponsible and utopian” due to a lack of infrastructure and the risk of massive layoffs. The MEP asked how the Commission would ensure adequate infrastructure, protect jobs, and if it was considering withdrawing the ban. In his response on 29 October 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra pointed to the regulation on alternative fuels infrastructure which sets deployment targets for public charging points. He acknowledged the impact on automotive employment and referenced the Industrial Action Plan, proposed amendments to the EGF and ESF+ funds, and the creation of a European Fair Transition Observatory as measures to help navigate these challenges. He also confirmed that a review of the CO2 standards regulation is underway.
❓ Calls for Review of the 2035 Combustion Engine Ban
On 10 October 2025, Beatrice Timgren and Dick Erixon (ECR) submitted question E-003983/2025, arguing that warnings about the negative social and economic costs of the 2035 ban on new combustion engine cars have been proven correct. Citing calls from Member States and manufacturers to re-examine the target, the MEPs asked if the Commission will present a proposal to review or postpone the target by the end of the year, how it will ensure technological neutrality, and if it acknowledges that industrial competitiveness must be part of any revision. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Horizon Europe Funding for the Turkish Car Industry
Mélanie Disdier and other MEPs from the PfE group submitted question E-004125/2025 on 20 October 2025. They raised concerns about reports of nearly EUR 1 billion in Horizon Europe funding being allocated to the Turkish automotive industry, which could benefit Chinese firms with investments in Türkiye and distort competition. The MEPs asked for details on the allocated funds, justification for funding a third country helping to “flood the European market with Chinese cars,” and when the funding will be redirected to European projects. A response from the Commission is pending.
Strategic Materials & Industrial Decarbonisation
❗ Requirements for Strategic Raw Material Projects
In question E-003556/25 submitted on 16 September 2025, Maria Ohisalo (Verts/ALE) sought clarification on the criteria for recognising strategic raw material projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). The MEP asked if applicants are required to provide a final profitability study to demonstrate project feasibility and production volume. In his response on 29 October 2025, Executive Vice-President Séjourné stated that the CRMA does not specifically require a final profitability study. However, he clarified that information on profitability is a mandatory part of the project’s business plan, which is required in the application and is used to assess the project’s contribution to CRMA capacity benchmarks.
❗ Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Waste Wood Recycling
Christine Schneider (PPE) submitted question E-003157/25 on 31 July 2025, asking about the potential for an EU-wide standard for the use of waste wood in producing wood-based materials and the need for harmonised technical requirements. In a reply on 28 October 2025, Commissioner Roswall stated that the Commission does not intend to develop a specific EU standard for waste wood. However, the upcoming Circular Economy Act, expected by 2026, will examine potential improvements in the procedures for adopting EU-wide end-of-waste and by-product criteria to facilitate a Single Market for secondary raw materials.
❓ Coherence in Decarbonisation Labelling for Steel
A cross-party group of MEPs led by Benedetta Scuderi (Verts/ALE) submitted question E-004184/2025 on 23 October 2025. The question raises concerns about a potential conflict between the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and the forthcoming industrial decarbonisation accelerator act regarding labelling for steel. The MEPs argue that the “sliding-scale” approach being considered for the accelerator act could penalise the use of scrap, discourage circularity, and undermine the competitiveness of EU secondary steelmakers. They asked how the Commission will ensure coherence between the two legislative frameworks. A response from the Commission is pending.
Aviation
❗ Commission View on ‘Green Fares’ in Air Traffic
In question E-003404/25 from 3 September 2025, Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN) asked about the results of ‘green fare’ airline projects and the Commission’s view on their low uptake by passengers. In his response on 28 October 2025, Commissioner Tzitzikostas noted that airlines have the freedom to set fares but optional supplements must be transparent and on an ‘opt-in’ basis. He highlighted an ongoing coordinated action with EU consumer authorities against 20 airlines for potentially misleading green claims. The Commission supports measures that incentivise sustainable choices, referencing the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, the voluntary Flight Emissions Label, and the Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act as key initiatives.
❓ China’s Export Rules on Rare Earth Elements
Engin Eroglu (Renew) submitted question E-004118/2025 on 20 October 2025, expressing concern over China’s decision to tighten export rules on rare earth elements (REEs), which are crucial for the European defence and high-tech industries. The MEP asked how the Commission assesses the risk to the European defence industry’s security of supply and how its strategy to secure raw materials fits into broader goals to strengthen defence capabilities and industrial resilience by 2030. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Circumvention of EU Sanctions on Russian Crude Oil
On 22 October 2025, Daniel Obajtek (ECR) submitted question E-004152/2025 regarding the import of petrochemical products derived from Russian crude oil via non-EU countries. The MEP argued this practice undermines EU sanctions, creates unfair competition, and contradicts the objectives of the REPowerEU plan. The question asks if the Commission is monitoring these imports, what its assessment of their impact is, and whether it intends to propose measures to close this loophole. A response from the Commission is pending.
