A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

BRUSSELS — For decades, European governments accepted that the decline of their polluting, loss-making steel industries was inevitable and irreversible. No more. After years of neglect, developed economies are discovering they don’t want to depend on even dirtier sources of steel made in China, Southeast Asia and North Africa. The bloated global steel sector — “overcapacity” in the jargon — is nothing new. What’s new is U.S. President Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on the metal. That means even more subsidized steel will head to the region from China, Indonesia, Turkey and Egypt that has been shut out of the American market. The bailout is starting. The U.K. has just renationalized its only steel plant that makes the metal from scratch. Last month, the EU launched a Steel Action Plan to revive the sector and stave off total collapse. And Australia is shelling out billions to turn a steel plant into a green pioneer. In the EU, €9 billion of state aid has been approved over the last few years. The Steel Action Plan will push defense research to expand the customer base in Europe. Another €100 billion is on the way to support scaling up carbon-free production. Policy incentives should help as well, such as making sure there’s a market for more expensive, but less polluting, steel. “We need to go even further,” French Industry and Energy Minister Marc Ferracci told reporters on a recent visit to the eastern steelmaking region of Alsace. Steel major ArcelorMittal has just announced it would cut around 600 jobs in France, with more to go in Belgium, too. The context, Ferracci said, is simple. “Chinese steel that is massively subsidized” has been pummeling the EU for years, chipping away at the market share of domestic steel. Added to that, are the “tariffs decided by the American administration,” he said. SUNSET INDUSTRY It’s not an easy sell. As it stands, the sector is not ready for the future, said steel transformation expert Boris Jankowiak at the Climate Action Network, a federation of NGOs. “At the moment we have a fossil-based steel industry that is facing several struggles,” he told POLITICO. “It’s not going to get better by sticking with fossil fuels.” Buying up a primary steel plant, as the U.K. government did, will not solve energy prices, slumping demand or reliance on coal and gas. From the Commission’s action plan, the contours are clear: energy prices need to come down, certain sectors need to start buying cleaner European steel over “dirty” foreign steel — and we need to recycle more. “All the pieces of the puzzle are there,” Jankowiak said. “So now it’s just about showing leadership and commitment to that transformation — also from the companies’ side.” Developed economies are discovering they don’t want to depend on even dirtier sources of steel made in China, Southeast Asia and North Africa. | Alex Plavevski/EPA Steel plants across the EU, like Italy’s Taranto works, have faced criticism for polluting the air, water and soil. Not many people are, understandably, happy to have a coking plant in their backyard. But, luckily, steel goes into so many products that it can be molded into whatever the Zeitgeist requires. Back in 2020, it was the green transition. Then, steel was heralded as the core of renewable energy, enabling local production of wind turbines (instead of importing them from China). “Green” battle tanks are the most recent argument. When he presented the Steel Action Plan at a plant in Germany’s post-industrial Ruhr region last month, European Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné stressed that it was a crucial cog “in the economic and material sovereignty of the entire European continent.” The action plan itself points out that a main battle tank contains 60 tons of steel. Séjourné’s plan was received positively by the sector and the EU countries who produce the most steel: Germany produces about a quarter, with Italy coming in second at around 10 percent. France, Romania and Poland each account for more than 7 percent of the European total, based on figures from lobby group Eurofer. The sector is spread widely across the bloc, with just five countries producing no steel. Post-Covid and in the middle of attempts to get rid of Europe’s decade-long dependency on Russian gas, a fresh dependency on basic Chinese industrial inputs is Brussels’ worst nightmare. Aside from security, there’s also employment. Ferracci said the French government is “supporting Arcelor’s decarbonization projects, which should help maintain jobs. Now, it’s time for these projects to materialize.” Some 300,000 people work in the steel industry in the EU, with another 37,000 in the U.K. While that is not much on the total labor market, once you lose steel, it could well spell the end for other much larger industries like carmaking or — indeed — defense and green energy. “It’s a similar shift [like the pandemic or Ukraine in 2022], but this time it is accelerating to an unprecedented pace,” a Commission official told POLITICO last month, pointing to the trinity of action plans on defense, industry and financing. Jankowiak, from the Climate Action Network, cautioned against “catchy” applications for steel. “Can production of tanks really create enough demand for steel on an industry level? And in the long term, this would rely on the tanks and artillery shells to be used — in case a war is actually waged. And this is not what we are calling for.” Nicolas Camut contributed to this report.

The European Union’s Competitiveness Compass has been postponed by another week to Jan. 29, according to an agenda obtained by POLITICO. The delay was confirmed by a European Commission official and an EU diplomat, who both spoke on condition of anonymity because planning details aren’t yet public. The proposal, which aims to set the economic strategy for the Commission’s work until 2029, was initially due to be unveiled on Wednesday, but was postponed after Commission President Ursula von der Leyen became ill with pneumonia. How sick she was only became clearer last week when the Commission confirmed that she had been hospitalized and is now recovering at her home in Germany. An earlier agenda showed the proposal would be presented next week but the latest planning document, dated Jan. 13, shows another week of delay. “I hope the date will remain Jan. 29,” the Commission official told POLITICO. The Competitiveness Compass is the keystone for a series of initiatives the Commission has scheduled for the next few months, including the Clean Industrial Deal due in February. Drawing from reports from Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta on how to boost the EU’s economy, the initiative aims to tackle the EU’s innovation gap with global rivals, ensure the bloc’s economic security and make progress on decarbonizing EU industry.

On Dec. 9th, the Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) organized the PKEE Energy Day 2024 event in Brussels, which brought together energy sector leaders, EU officials and policymakers to discuss Europe’s energy transformation. With energy security, the transition and economic competitiveness as central themes, the event highlighted Poland’s upcoming presidency of the Council of the European Union and its role in addressing energy challenges during a pivotal time for Europe. Poland’s presidency comes amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, ambitious EU climate targets, and the need to secure affordable energy. Polish officials outlined priorities focusing on energy security, industrial competitiveness, and advancing the EU’s clean and just energy transition. Dariusz Marzec, president of PKEE and CEO of PGE, emphasized the moment’s significance — stating that the energy transformation is not only about achieving climate goals, but also ensuring a competitive economy and benefits for citizens. Marzec highlighted investments in offshore wind farms, grid modernization and energy storage as critical pillars for strengthening energy security in Poland. > Polish officials outlined priorities focusing on energy security, industrial > competitiveness, and advancing the EU’s clean and just energy transition. Poland’s energy policy legacy So far, and despite its decarbonization challenges, Poland has proactively shaped EU energy policy. Notably, Prime Minister Donald Tusk proposed the “Energy Union” in 2014 to strengthen energy security, reduce reliance on Russian energy and promote joint gas purchases. These ideas influenced the 2022 REPowerEU Plan. Poland also contributed to establishing financial mechanisms supporting the energy transition, such as the EU’s Modernization Fund and the Just Transition Fund, aiding coal-dependent regions. Collaboration with the European Commission has helped fund key energy infrastructure, including interconnectors across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Currently, Poland is advancing offshore wind projects, positioning itself as a regional leader alongside Baltic states. These initiatives integrate supply chains, foster innovation, and promote cooperation. via PKEE Ensuring energy security during crisis During PKEE Energy Day 2024, Paulina Hennig-Kloska, Poland’s minister of climate and environment, stressed that Poland’s presidency will prioritize energy security while pursuing climate objectives. She emphasized investments in renewable energy, energy storage technologies and grid modernization. A top priority for Poland’s presidency will be delivering the REPowerEU goal to phase out the EU’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels. It would be worthwhile for this phase out to be permanent and integrated into the EU’s climate and energy security policies. Lessons learned from Russia’s war in Ukraine must drive long-term resilience and independence in Europe’s energy systems. Ditte Juul Jorgensen, director-general for energy at the European Commission, underscored the importance of collaboration: “The Polish presidency will play a key role in safeguarding energy security while ensuring a fair transition for all EU member states.” Nicola Pochettino from the European Investment Bank stressed the need to reduce energy costs while supporting climate goals, indicating that a just transition must benefit all citizens and regions. A competitive industrial strategy Europe’s energy sector plays a vital role in decarbonizing industry, promoting electrification and ensuring competitive energy prices. However, challenges remain. High energy costs continue to hinder European businesses, with electricity prices in 2023 still 80% higher than in the US and 55% higher than in China. These disparities threaten the EU’s industrial competitiveness. Poland’s presidency aims to strengthen European industry’s competitiveness, supported by proposals like the Clean Industrial Deal, which seeks to lower energy costs and support clean energy. Marzena Czarnecka, Poland’s minister of industry, stressed the importance of competitiveness on Poland’s agenda. Jakub Jaworowski, minister of state assets, echoed this, noting that the energy transition must deliver low-cost, clean energy and competitive prices for the industry. > High energy costs continue to hinder European businesses, with electricity > prices in 2023 still 80% higher than in the US and 55% higher than in China. Industry leaders emphasized the need for clear regulations and financial mechanisms to drive investments. Walburga Hemetsberger, CEO of SolarPower Europe, called for grid modernization to accommodate renewables, while Giles Dickson, CEO of WindEurope, advocated for supporting European wind energy manufacturing to compete globally. Addressing structural challenges Energy experts highlighted the need to address systemic challenges in Europe’s energy system. Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, pointed to historical missteps, such as reliance on Russian gas, the retreat from nuclear power and underinvestment in solar PV manufacturing. Birol expressed optimism, stating that the EU must focus on retaining its industrial base and preparing for growth powered by clean technologies. Modernizing Europe’s energy grids is critical to prevent them from hindering economic growth. Roman Szyszko, vice-president of the management board of ENERGA SA and member of the management board of PKEE, emphasized that grid investments, which could reach €425 billion by 2030, are essential to accelerate the transition. Energy storage: A pillar of resilience At the same time, energy storage technologies are key to stabilizing grids as renewable energy expands. Grzegorz Onichimowski, president of PSE, highlighted the need for large-scale storage solutions beyond small prosumer batteries, citing power-to-heat technologies and gas-fired plants as additional supports for grid stability. Grzegorz Lot, CEO of TAURON and vice-president of the management board of PKEE, underscored the importance of energy storage, sharing plans for a 700 MW pumped-storage plant and stressing the need for clear legislative frameworks to attract investments. Bruce Douglas, president of the Global Renewables Alliance, emphasized long-term storage solutions, while Guillermo Antonio Rios Pavia of Aurora Energy Research highlighted how battery storage can enhance flexibility. via PKEE A just transition focused on citizens Participants agreed that the energy transition must prioritize affordability and inclusivity. Grzegorz Kinelski, CEO of ENEA and vice-president of the management board of PKEE, noted the importance of a diverse energy mix combining renewables and gas alongside energy storage. Mechanisms such as capacity markets and contracts for difference are essential to ensure a smooth and just transition. Building a unified energy vision Poland’s contributions, including the Energy Union and the Just Transition Fund, demonstrate how national initiatives can become EU-wide successes. By fostering cooperation and advocating for shared benefits, Poland aims to advance Europe’s energy goals during its presidency. As Europe faces significant energy challenges, the CEE region’s role will be vital in building a competitive and resilient region. Finalizing the REPowerEU goal, modernizing infrastructure and strengthening industrial competitiveness will be central to Poland’s efforts. Through collaboration with EU institutions and member states, Poland seeks to secure affordable energy, drive innovation and deliver on climate objectives, ensuring Europe’s energy future remains sustainable and competitive.

The final U.N. climate summit of the Biden era is due to kick off next week amid gloom from many in the environmental community over the election of Donald Trump. But a top Democrat will be there to “reassure the international community that large swaths of the U.S. remain committed to steering the planet away from climate catastrophe.” This pledge from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee who has used his gavel to link climate change to economic calamity, comes days after Trump’s resounding victory and with Republicans on track to retake control of Congress. It also comes as green advocates fear the new balance of power in Washington will lead to a rollback of environmental regulations and the end of climate leadership on the world stage. “Cracking down on methane leakage, decarbonizing our economy, and combatting sea level rise are firmly on my agenda for COP29,” said Whitehouse in a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News. “But we can’t ignore that Donald Trump, Republicans, and their fossil fuel mega-donors are aiming a torpedo at the climate progress Democrats have made in the last four years.” He added, “We will not give up the fight for climate action and against the fossil fuel corruption that’s soon to take power in Washington.” Whitehouse had already announced plans to head to Baku, Azerbaijan, for the climate talks, which are set to take place from Nov. 11-22. His office confirmed Thursday he will still be leading a “smaller delegation of just Democrats” from Nov. 16-17. House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in September he, too, would be attending the summit. His spokesperson had no further details to share this week about whether he would be traveling with colleagues. But the significance of this year’s summit has intensified in the aftermath of the election, which will usher in a dramatic shift in climate policy. Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accord during his last time in the White House and deprioritized climate action across the federal government. Jonathan Pershing, the program director of environment at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation who previously had a leading role in U.N. climate talks on behalf of the Biden and Obama administrations, suggested in the press call hosted by the World Resources Institute that the international community wouldn’t miss Congress’ participation one way or the other. Congress has an important role to play in approving aid for climate projects abroad, but Republican opposition to foreign assistance has prevented the U.S. from meaningfully increasing funding, Perishing said. The Biden administration has increased climate finance from the previous Trump administration, but it remains well below what small economies in Europe contribute. In other words, U.S. contributions won‘t be missed. At the same time, Pershing recalled the time it took to “rebuild trust” between the international community and the United States in 2008, when President Barack Obama was elected after eight years of President George W. Bush. When Biden was elected to replace Trump in 2020, Pershing continued, “it took the first entire year to establish the sense that the U.S. was a worthy partner.” He predicted a similar dynamic will be at play this time around, where the United States would “abdicate” its role as a leader on climate action and the country’s reputation would suffer for it. “To me,” Pershing said, “that is the worst outcome.” Democratic lawmakers could fill that void, said Lori Lodes, president of Climate Power. “One of the most important things” members can tell counterparts in Baku, she told reporters, “is that America is still all in. Just because Trump is president doesn’t mean that those 26 governors are all of a sudden going to walk away from their 100 percent clean energy plans.” “The emissions reductions are happening at the state and local levels, the investments in clean energy are skyrocketing, and so the U.S. is not going anywhere,” Lodes continued. “This changes nothing.” Reporter Sara Schonhardt contributed. This story also appears in E&E Daily.

LONDON — It is, says one former U.K. energy minister, “the biggest problem” blocking the country’s efforts to go green. How do you kit out the U.K.’s millions of old, cold, drafty homes with better insulation and cleaner heating systems? After years in government grappling with the same issue, Britain’s Conservatives are now going on the attack — seizing on what they believe is a major political blindspot for Labour and accusing their opponents of a real lack of ambition as winter approaches. It seems like an open goal at a time when Labour already faces voter fury for cutting social security payments meant to help pensioners cope with heating costs — but the problem runs far deeper, and implicates the Tories too. One of the energy sector’s most influential figures has already fired her own warning shot at new ministers. “We are very worried, and thinking about or interested in heat — and I haven’t heard much from the new Labour government about heat at all,” Emma Pinchbeck, Energy UK boss and incoming chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, which scrutinizes government policy, said last month. “They haven’t said anything on it,” said Martin Callanan, a Conservative member of the House of Lords and, until July, an energy minister. “How you get to grips with home heating and small business heating, basically gas heating in the U.K., is the biggest problem [the government] face.” WARNING SHOTS The stakes couldn’t be higher if Britain is serious about meeting its climate targets — and weaning itself off foreign energy imports. Replacing old boilers with heat pumps, and cladding walls to stop heat escaping, are a “key component” of the U.K.’s drive to slash carbon emissions, government watchdog the National Audit Office said earlier this year.  Experts say Britain needs to make progress on the issue to protect U.K. energy security, too. “Insulation is now crucial to our energy independence, as we have to reduce gas demand to stop imports rising as the North Sea continues its inevitable decline,” said Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank. Yet the new government has a real job on its hands — and earlier attempts to drastically improve Britain’s drafty homes hardly bode well for the future. During the Tories’ decade-and-a-half in power, they too struggled with home heating policies. They’ve been fighting about that failure in public since they left office. The last government delayed a scheme meant to encourage manufacturers to phase out dirty gas boilers — the clean homes market mechanism (CHMM) — because it was something “Claire [Coutinho, the energy secretary] and Number 10 refused to get to grips with,” Callanan claimed. (Coutinho fired back in response that colleagues in her department backing the CHMM “couldn’t make the case for their position.”) Claire Coutinho did hike grants for homes to get them to switch to heat pumps, a move Labour’s new ministers copied this month. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images Coutinho did hike grants for homes to get them to switch to heat pumps, a move Labour’s new ministers copied this month. The number of households using the scheme has been ticking up — but installations will need to grow eleven-fold by 2028 to hit government targets, according to the 2024 National Audit Office report. Meanwhile, the Conservatives’ major cladding program, the £1 billion Great British Insulation Scheme, is so far off track that analysts reckon it would take just shy of 150 years to hit its target. “We do support moves to insulate homes better. It’s absolutely one of the easiest ways that we can actually reduce our carbon emissions, ensure that we’re not wasting heat being generated,” said Andrew Bowie, now a shadow energy minister after July’s election ousted the Tories. He insisted the previous government made “great strides” in improving home insulation — but could have gone “further and faster.” “It’s something that we struggled with throughout our time in government,” admitted Callanan. There simply weren’t enough workers trained to fit insulation, he said. Other shadow ministers identified problems communicating the schemes to the public to encourage uptake, too. “It basically came down to the fact that people didn’t really understand” the help available, said MP Mark Garnier. OVER TO LABOUR Now all of this is Labour’s problem — and experts already fear a lack of ambition. The new government has already introduced “some helpful tweaks to existing schemes” for subsidizing heat pumps and insulation, Ralston said. But she warned: “There’s some doubt that this will be enough, and there are still policy options on the table.” Labour has moved quickly on a series of headline-grabbing energy policy decisions, from green-lighting vast solar farms to setting up a state-owned clean energy firm, GB Energy. Yet Tory rivals aren’t convinced it’ll do much on the bread-and-butter problem of keeping people warm. “When you start pushing into the details of all of this stuff, actually it tends to fall a bit short,” Garnier said. Labour ditched more ambitious home-heating plans before the election campaign even began, when it slashed its totemic green spending pledge. Yet it still entered government with a big promise: to spend over £6 billion upgrading five million homes in the next five years with new heat pumps and insulation. But Chancellor Rachel Reeves — who has a government-wide budget looming later this month — has already started to row back on some financial commitments, claiming Labour has inherited a £22 billion “black hole” from the last administration. The government insists all of this will be addressed in an upcoming “Warm Homes Plan.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves — who has a government-wide budget looming later this month — has already started to row back on some financial commitments, claiming Labour has inherited a £22 billion “black hole” from the last administration. | Pool photo by Jonathan Brady via AFP/Getty Images Energy Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh told POLITICO this week: “The Warm Homes Plan, if we get it right, will be an ambitious program for how we get warmer, cleaner homes that are cheaper to run. It is a massive undertaking.” Fahnbulleh told parliament last month that details on the plan will not be unveiled until after the spending review in the spring. When DESNZ last month announced the latest round of funding to insulate social housing, it admitted — in a sentence buried deep inside the documents — that the £1.2 billion committed to that fund by the last government was no longer guaranteed. “I think they’d be mad not to continue with it,” said Callanan. “They are now in government,” said Bowie. “It’s up to them to develop the policies that are going to change the state of the situation in terms of home insulation.” ‘VERY POOREST’ While the Conservatives gloat about Labour’s woes, the government faces pressure from its left flank, too. Current home-heating policies are “lacking,” said Green MP and party co-leader Adrian Ramsay. Labour should be rolling out help which “touches every street in the country, which is what we need if everyone’s going to benefit from warmer homes and lower bills and decarbonizing heating,” he said. Backbench Labour MPs, facing constituents spooked by still-rising energy bills, have also started to notice the hole in the government’s decarbonization plans. “People across my constituency are worried about how they will afford to heat their homes this winter,” new Labour MP Laura Kyrke-Smith told parliament this week. “It is often the very poorest in our communities [who] are forced to live in those cold and drafty properties,” said another Labour backbencher elected this summer, Joe Morris. Kyrke-Smith and Morris — naturally — point the finger firmly at the previous government. But in the meantime, Brits face another winter in cold — and carbon-intensive — homes. “There are,” said Callanan, the former Tory energy minister, “no easy political answers.”

LIVERPOOL, England — Never mind the fiscal blackhole, here’s Ed Miliband. A rainy Labour Party conference in Liverpool was haunted this week by the specter of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ imminent, cost-cutting Budget. It was overshadowed by a row over top government figures getting freebies from wealthy donors. But one Cabinet minister has been determined to bring the sunshine. “Tough times mean we don’t lower our sights, we raise them,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in his conference speech on Monday afternoon. In a government so far defined by downbeat messages about the fiscal inheritance left them by the Conservatives, and warnings to voters about “painful” spending decisions to come, Miliband has carved out a role as de-facto secretary of state for hope and change — and it’s been on show in Liverpool. Every day in government, he told the party faithful, is “a chance in our time to write a new chapter in the history of our great country.” He boasted about the speed with which his department had been making decisions, “in a few short weeks” after getting into office. Miliband’s been pledging to create jobs in renewable energy, bring down consumer bills and make the U.K. a global leader on climate action. The speech was light on new policy — notwithstanding a pledge to upgrade energy efficiency standards in social housing. But Labour members, who once picked Miliband as their leader for an ill-fated five-year spell, greeted him with a standing ovation. The hopey-changey vibes even appeared to have infected Reeves. Two weeks after the chancellor was told she risked undermining the economy, so doom-laden had she become, her own conference speech also leaned into Labour’s energy and infrastructure plans as she searched out a vision for the future. Not everyone shares Miliband’s buoyant mood, however. Oil and gas companies are furious at his plans to ban new drilling licences in the North Sea. Some local communities are organizing against his proposals for more pylons, solar farms and wind turbines across England’s green and pleasant land. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, a growing force on the political right, calls Miliband the “zealot-in-chief” and “the most dangerous man to the British economy.” All have the potential to cause serious trouble in the future. On the conference floor at least, the energy secretary’s good vibes found a receptive audience. “Optimism in the conference hall is certainly higher now than it was at the start of the week,” said Paul McNamee, director of the grassroots Labour Climate and Environment Forum group. He hailed “storming speeches from Ed Miliband and [Environment Secretary] Steve Reed.” Ed Miliband has become something of a cult figure for Labour’s younger, green-minded members. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images RETURN OF THE MIL It’s a remarkable reinvention for Miliband. Ten years ago this week he was delivering his last party conference speech as leader of the opposition. That occasion is now best-remembered for what he forgot to say: anything about the budget deficit or immigration. The country duly rejected him at the 2015 general election the next year. Now, Miliband is on his 29th party conference — and has become something of a cult figure for Labour’s younger, green-minded members. RenewableUK, the industry association, was even offering delegates free cappuccinos with Miliband’s face on them. “It was the role he was born to do,” said Labour MP Toby Perkins, the new chair of the House of Commons environmental audit committee. “He has come into this government with a big to-do list and a real determination to finish the job that he started,” Perkins said, referencing Miliband’s first stint as energy secretary under Gordon Brown between 2008 and 2010, adding: “He’s keen to make up for lost time.” After two and a half months in government, no Cabinet minister has quite as much material for his conference drinks reception stump speeches as Miliband. Lifting England’s de facto ban on onshore wind, giving planning permission to four giant solar farms, introducing legislation to set up publicly-owned power company GB Energy — the list is now wearily familiar to the energy industry lobbyists tracking Miliband at conference. But it’s evidence of just how much agency Miliband has been given within the wider Starmer-Reeves political project. One energy industry executive who has spoken with Starmer about the government’s clean energy plans came away struck by the free rein Miliband has been given by the PM. “He’s empowered Ed Miliband. He trusts his team to go and do it,” the executive said. And if the going gets tougher in the months ahead, Miliband insists he’s braced for those battles. “There’s this phrase in the tech world, ‘move fast and break things’,” he told a group of green activists at a Labour conference drinks reception on Sunday evening. “I’m not so in favor of that — but ‘move fast and build things’ … That’s my motto.”