This report summarizes key developments in EU Energy policy during Q4 2025, covering the period from 1 September 2025 to 28 December 2025. Over these three months, a total of 406 new Parliamentary Questions (PQs) were published and 217 Commission Answers were made available. The quarter was dominated by intense scrutiny of the implementation and socio-economic impact of carbon pricing mechanisms, particularly the upcoming ETS2 and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). A second major narrative focused on industrial competitiveness and strategic autonomy, with MEPs frequently questioning the impact of high energy prices, the fairness of state aid rules, and the security of critical raw material supply chains. Finally, there was a persistent focus on energy infrastructure and security, driven by concerns over grid resilience, the progress of key interconnection projects, and the geopolitical dimensions of the EU’s energy partnerships, including the phase-out of Russian gas and a new agreement with the United States.
Throughout the quarter, parliamentary scrutiny of renewable energy policy focused on the practical challenges of deployment and the principle of technology neutrality. A recurring theme was the conflict between accelerating renewable energy projects and upholding environmental protections, with MEPs raising concerns about solar and wind farm developments in Natura 2000 sites and on fertile agricultural land. The Commission consistently reiterated that while the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) aims to speed up permitting, Member States remain responsible for conducting appropriate environmental assessments and balancing competing land-use interests.
The role of nuclear power was also a significant topic of debate, with a cross-party group of MEPs criticising the Commission for not putting nuclear on an equal footing with other clean technologies and for failing to address access to finance. Questions also arose regarding the recognition of nuclear energy for producing e-fuels. In the biomass sector, discussions centred on the classification of waste for energy use and the rules for certifying bio-LNG, while the Commission faced intense scrutiny over its proposed revision of ecodesign requirements for solid fuel heaters, which MEPs argued could deepen energy poverty.
Key Questions This Quarter
❓ Incentives and Technology Neutrality for Nuclear Energy
A large cross-party group of MEPs, led by András Gyürk (PfE), submitted this question on 14 November 2025, criticising the Commission’s draft nuclear illustrative programme (PINC) for lacking concrete policy measures and failing to put nuclear on an equal footing with other clean technologies. The MEPs ask if the Commission will complement the PINC with a strategic action plan and ensure technology neutrality in upcoming legislation. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004561/2025).
❗ Commission Reaffirms Environmental Safeguards for Renewables in Natura 2000 Areas
In a response published on 3 October 2025, Commissioner Roswall reiterated that under the Habitats Directive, any project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site must undergo an appropriate assessment. The response highlighted that the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Greece in June 2025 for failing to establish necessary conservation measures for 239 sites. While the amended Renewable Energy Directive (RED) aims to accelerate permitting, it explicitly excludes Natura 2000 sites from lighter assessment regimes. (E-002580/25, Yannis Maniatis, S&D).
❓ Impact of Revised Ecodesign Rules for Solid Fuel Heaters
MEP Tobiasz Bocheński (ECR) submitted a series of questions on 17 September 2025, questioning the social and energy impact of revised ecodesign regulations for solid fuel local space heaters (SFLSH). He argues the new rules could exclude cheap heating appliances using wood and biomass, increasing energy poverty in Central and Eastern European countries like Poland, and asks if the Commission has conducted a comprehensive impact assessment for these regions. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-003585/2025).
The resilience and modernisation of the EU’s energy infrastructure were central themes this quarter, brought into sharp focus by a major blackout on the Iberian Peninsula in April 2025. Multiple MEPs questioned the Commission on the causes of the incident and the adequacy of existing risk-preparedness measures. In its responses, the Commission confirmed an independent investigation was underway and highlighted its upcoming “Grids Package” as a key initiative to modernise infrastructure, streamline permitting, and enhance resilience against extreme weather and other threats.
The slow progress of key cross-border interconnection projects was another source of parliamentary concern. MEPs repeatedly pressed the Commission on delays affecting the Iberian Peninsula’s links to France and the Great Sea Interconnector (GSI) between Greece and Cyprus, citing geopolitical tensions and questions over economic viability. The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to these Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), detailing the significant EU funding allocated and stressing their strategic importance for ending energy isolation and improving market integration.
Key Questions This Quarter
❗ Investigation into the Iberian Blackout Progressing
Following a major blackout in the Iberian Peninsula, Commissioner Jørgensen confirmed in a response on 28 November 2025 that an expert panel adopted a factual report in October 2025, with a final report containing recommendations expected in the coming months. The Commission will draw lessons from the incident, including potentially strengthening the protection of vulnerable customers in a future revision of the energy security framework. (E-002275/25, Dolors Montserrat, PPE).
❓ MEPs Demand Action on Delayed Spain-France Electricity Interconnections
This question from MEPs Borja Giménez Larraz (PPE) and Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), submitted on 18 November 2025, highlighted that two key cross-Pyrenean projects have been pushed back by over a decade. The MEPs asked if the Commission is considering new legal instruments to strengthen European governance of such projects and enhance its ability to intervene when Member States cause delays. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004586/2025).
❗ EU Grid Modernisation and Electrification Targets
In a response published on 22 December 2025, Commissioner Jørgensen highlighted the need to increase the EU’s electrification rate from 21.3% to 32% by 2030, which necessitates significant grid investment. He confirmed that a European Grids Package will be proposed by the end of 2025 to improve planning and permitting, and stressed the need to balance grid development with environmental protection under existing EU laws. (E-003876/2025, Sarah Knafo, ESN).
Debates on financing and market design were dominated by the upcoming implementation of the ETS2 and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). MEPs from various political groups raised numerous questions about the potential impact of ETS2 on household energy costs, with the Commission defending the mechanism as a key tool for competitiveness and highlighting the role of the Social Climate Fund (SCF) in mitigating social impacts. The slow submission of national Social Climate Plans by Member States was a point of recurring scrutiny. Similarly, the implementation of CBAM generated significant uncertainty, with MEPs questioning the timeline for publishing benchmark values and the mechanism’s impact on key sectors like fertilisers and steel.
State aid rules and the distribution of EU funds were also heavily debated. Germany’s plans for an industrial electricity tariff prompted multiple questions from MEPs in neighbouring countries, who feared a distortion of the single market. The Commission confirmed it was assessing the plans for compatibility with EU rules. Scrutiny of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) focused on implementation delays in several Member States, including Greece, Spain, and Italy. Looking ahead, MEPs questioned the design of the future European Competitiveness Fund, urging the Commission to ensure fair geographical access and support for SMEs.
Key Questions This Quarter
❓ Compatibility of German Industrial Energy Tariff with Single Market Questioned
MEP Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE) questioned the Commission on 3 December 2025 about Germany’s plan to introduce an industrial energy tariff from January 2026. He raises concerns from businesses in other Member States, like the Czech Republic, that this measure will distort fair competition and asks if the Commission considers the plan compatible with single market principles. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004797/2025).
❗ Reassessing the timetable and safeguards for ETS2
In a reply on 12 November 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra addressed concerns that the new Emissions Trading System for buildings and road transport (ETS2) could significantly increase costs. He stated that the Commission considers high price forecasts unrealistic as they often ignore complementary national policies. He confirmed the Social Climate Fund (SCF) will start in 2026, a year before ETS2, financed by ETS1 allowances to enable early national support measures. (E-003032/25, Andrzej Halicki, PPE, et al.).
❓ Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on Fertiliser Market
In a question submitted on 12 December 2025, Galato Alexandraki (ECR) raised concerns about the full implementation of the CBAM from 1 January 2026, citing uncertainty in the fertiliser market and a potential 20-30% cost increase for farmers. The MEP asks how the Commission will address price uncertainty and whether a postponement or transition period for the sector is being considered. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004930/2025).
Throughout the quarter, the Commission defended its core Green Deal legislation against criticism from MEPs concerned about regulatory burden and economic impact. In response to calls for the repeal of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and ETS2, the Commission argued these policies were essential for long-term energy security and would ultimately lower consumer bills, supported by substantial EU funding for vulnerable households. The Commission also defended its proposed 90% emissions reduction target for 2040 as a pragmatic and flexible step towards climate neutrality that enhances EU energy security.
At the same time, the Commission acknowledged the need for simplification. It announced plans for an “omnibus” simplification package for energy legislation in 2026 and a proposal to reduce administrative burdens linked to environmental laws. However, this agenda was met with scepticism by some MEPs, who framed it as a “deregulatory drift” that risked weakening the Green Deal. The implementation of specific regulations, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), also drew criticism for its perceived disproportionate impact on certain Member States’ industries.
Key Questions This Quarter
❗ Clarifying the Impact of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
In a reply on 23 September 2025, Commissioner Jørgensen clarified that the revised EPBD does not impose mandatory renovation obligations on residential buildings. Instead, it sets national trajectories for Member States to reduce average primary energy use, giving them flexibility on how to achieve these targets while prioritising financial support for vulnerable households. He noted that over EUR 100 billion is available under the current MFF for building renovation. (E-002643/25, Markus Buchheit, ESN).
❗ EU on Track for 2030 Climate Goals, but 2050 Neutrality Requires More Effort
In a reply on 11 December 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra noted that the latest assessment of updated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) indicates the EU is on track to meet its 2030 goal, with emissions expected to decline by 54% compared to 1990. However, based on the Long-Term Strategies (LTS) submitted by Member States, a rough estimate points to only an 86% reduction by 2050, falling short of the climate neutrality target. (E-004161/2025, Jacek Ozdoba, ECR).
❓ Call for Member State-Specific Impact Assessment of 2040 Climate Target
On 23 September 2025, Piotr Müller (ECR) questioned the Commission’s proposal for a 90% emissions reduction target by 2040. The question argues that the existing pan-European impact assessment is insufficient and calls for an assessment broken down by individual Member States to account for different energy mixes and socioeconomic costs. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-003680/2025).
The competitiveness of EU industry in the face of the green transition and global competition was a paramount concern this quarter. The automotive sector was a particular flashpoint, with numerous MEPs from different groups calling for a review or postponement of the 2035 ban on new combustion engine vehicles, citing job losses, affordability issues, and competition from China. The Commission confirmed it had accelerated its review of the CO2 standards, promising a fact-based analysis that would consider technological neutrality, including the role of e-fuels, and the need for a socially fair transition.
The security of strategic supply chains was another dominant theme. The implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) was closely watched, with MEPs questioning the criteria for selecting strategic projects and calling for measures to reduce dependence on China. The Commission launched its RESourceEU Action Plan to accelerate CRM projects and support circularity. Challenges facing other energy-intensive industries, such as steel, silicon, and chemicals, were also frequently raised, with MEPs demanding trade defence measures, state aid flexibility, and support for decarbonisation efforts through initiatives like the upcoming Industrial Accelerator Act.
Key Questions This Quarter
❗ Commission Stance on 2035 Combustion Engine Ban
In a reply on 29 October 2025, Commissioner Hoekstra addressed criticism of the 2035 ban on new combustion engine vehicles. He 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. (E-003351/25, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, PfE).
❗ Commission Launches RESourceEU Action Plan to Tackle CRM Dependencies
In a reply on 17 December 2025, Commissioner Kubilius acknowledged that dependencies on critical raw materials (CRMs) pose a serious security risk. To counter this, the Commission adopted the RESourceEU Action Plan on 3 December 2025. The plan will mobilize EUR 3 billion in EU funds in 2026 to accelerate CRM projects, support circularity, and establish an EU CRM Centre for joint purchasing, stockpiling, and monitoring. (E-004118/25, Engin Eroglu, Renew).
❓ MEPs Demand Support for HDV Sector Amidst Tough CO₂ Targets
In a question from 8 December 2025, Nicola Zingaretti and other S&D members warned that EU manufacturers face significant fines due to ambitious CO₂ reduction targets for heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). They point to the lack of purchase incentives, high ownership costs, and inadequate charging infrastructure as major obstacles and ask what measures the Commission will adopt to enforce infrastructure targets and ensure sales volumes can meet the targets. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004842/2025).
The EU’s external energy relations were a major focus, defined by efforts to phase out Russian energy and forge new strategic partnerships. The Commission repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to ending reliance on Russian gas, welcoming a legislative proposal to gradually phase it out and a sanctions package including a ban on Russian LNG. MEPs raised concerns about potential sanction circumvention via third countries and the security of remaining supply routes like the Druzhba pipeline.
A landmark political agreement with the United States to increase energy imports, valued at approximately USD 750 billion through 2028, drew significant attention. The Commission defended the deal as a key component of the REPowerEU plan to replace Russian imports and compatible with the EU’s climate goals. However, some MEPs questioned the deal’s impact on strategic autonomy and its alignment with the Green Deal. Geopolitical tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean also featured prominently, with the Commission reiterating its support for Member States’ sovereign rights and key infrastructure projects like the Great Sea Interconnector, while calling on Türkiye to commit to good neighbourly relations.
Key Questions This Quarter
❗ Commission Confirms USD 750 Billion EU-US Energy Deal to Replace Russian Imports
In a reply on 1 October 2025, Commissioner Šefčovič confirmed a political agreement to increase energy imports from the US, including LNG, oil, and nuclear items, with an expected total value of approximately USD 750 billion over the next three years. He clarified that the purchases will be carried out by private companies and are designed to contribute to the full replacement of all Russian energy imports, consistent with the REPowerEU plan. (E-003195/25).
❗ Commission Reaffirms Commitment to Phasing Out Russian Gas
In a response on 16 December 2025, Commissioner Jørgensen stated that while the REPowerEU plan has driven significant diversification away from Russian gas, remaining imports still pose a security risk. The Commission welcomed the Council’s agreement on a legislative proposal to gradually phase out Russian gas and the 19th sanctions package, which includes a ban on Russian LNG. (E-003536/25, Erik Kaliňák, NI).
❓ German State Aid for LNG Terminals and Fossil Fuel Dependency
Martin Günther (The Left) submitted a question on 11 December 2025, challenging the Commission’s approval of EUR 4.06 billion in German State aid for four floating LNG terminals. The MEP asks if subsidising fossil fuel infrastructure is consistent with the European Green Deal and what specific indicators the Commission uses to justify such aid for remedying serious economic disturbances. A response from the Commission is pending. (E-004918/2025).
As the quarter concludes, several critical policy questions remain on the Commission’s agenda, setting the stage for debates in early 2026. A significant number of pending responses relate to the compatibility of Germany’s planned industrial energy subsidies with EU state aid rules and the single market. The detailed impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on specific sectors, particularly fertilisers, is another area awaiting clarification. Furthermore, the Commission is expected to respond to growing calls from MEPs and industry to review the 2035 phase-out of combustion engines for both light and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as to outline its strategy for responding to China’s export restrictions on critical raw materials. The future of key EU funding instruments, including the Just Transition Fund and the LIFE programme, also remains a topic of intense parliamentary interest.
All Parliamentary Questions and Commission Answers are accessible via Policy-Insider.AI.
