Metal industry group says new EU state aid rules fail to help
The Commission is due to announce new state aid rules on June 26 after a public consultation on its February proposal.
"While we are committed to industrial decarbonisation, a framework that is over-focused on this objective and fails to concurrently and robustly address the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries would be a critical error," industry group Eurometaux said in the letter.
The group sent the letter this week to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the commissioners in charge of climate, industry, energy and competition.
The new rules are part of the Commission's goal to revitalise Europe's flailing industries with its Clean Industrial Deal. The spike in energy costs over the last few years due to the loss of Russian natural gas has hit European industry hard.
The share of energy has risen to 60% of total operational costs for some smelters versus 40% prior to the 2021-2022 energy crisis.
The high costs make the sector increasingly uncompetitive at a time when the EU wants to reduce its over-dependence on third countries, namely China, for strategic materials key to clean tech and power grid infrastructure.
U.S. rivals benefit from cheap gas and Chinese firms from massive state aid across the supply chain.
"Measures substantially addressing our sectors' competitiveness are absent from the proposed framework. The adopted Clean Industry State Aid Framework must go beyond decarbonisation...allowing for immediate support to energy intensives, to cope with very high energy prices," the letter states.
"There are currently no mechanisms helping electricity consumers switch to consuming low-carbon electricity sources."
Heavy industry cannot fully take advantage of the bloc's rising renewable energy output due to location and daily variability, forcing them to rely on expensive fossil fuels.
The draft rules could exclude companies from state benefits owing to their indirect electricity emissions. Further, the letter calls for the Commission to support the return of idled capacity such as Slovalco's aluminium smelter in Slovakia.
"Failure to act will inevitably lead to a further loss of our industrial capacity," the group said in its letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?
Stories about 'two-tier' policing and justice have become a frequent feature in the news. Just this week, there's been yet another 'two-tier' policing row over a pro-Palestine protestor dressed as a holocaust concentration camp inmate and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, no less, has said allegations of 'two-tier' justice are 'disgusting '. Then there's the ongoing reports about Lucy Connolly. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an ill-judged post on X about asylum seekers (which she later deleted). The appeal to reduce her sentence failed, but when serious offences receive lesser sentencing, there are legitimate grounds for concern. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, but public perception as to whether this remains the case is being harmed and presents a crisis of trust in our institutions. So, is the Attorney General wrong to express his criticism of those speaking up on the status quo? My new report for Civitas delves into examples of 'two-tier' policing and justice. My findings indicate public perception around police impartiality and justice have indeed been eroded over the decades. None of this should be taken lightly, given impartiality is central to the police's commitment to discharge their duties, 'without fear or favour' – but there are examples of where policing might be viewed as operating, 'with fear and favour'. Are some groups, like the white working class, treated differently to others? Are they treated equally to Black Lives Matter (who Starmer took the knee for, whilst in opposition), climate protestors or Muslim counter protestors following the Southport tragedy? Last summer's disorder was a focal point, but racial and religious sensitivities have long impacted justice for grooming gang survivors. A hierarchical hate crime policy for Britain's faith groups, plus allegations of two-tier policing since October 7, give rise to further questions about impartiality. The existing policing approach reflects that rather than operating on a colour-blind or community-blind basis, the attempt was made by police to compensate for the allegation stemming from the Macpherson inquiry of 'institutional racism' – by policing different communities in different ways. Although this is well intentioned, it is not without consequence. The Government have pushed back on this framing. In fact in April, the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the 2024 riots referred to 'unsubstantiated and disgraceful claims of 'two-tier policing''. The state's decisive action to quell disorder, post Southport against so-called 'far-Right thugs' (a narrative later proven to be false) was of course necessary, but it contrasts with the approach to the Roma riots in Harehills (Leeds) where at one point, the police retreated after becoming the target of the mob themselves, or disorder by predominantly Muslim counter-protestors in Bordesley Green (Birmingham) where journalists were targeted and a white man attacked outside a pub. Remarkably, Leeds City Council issued a joint statement (a day after Harehills) praising the Romanian/Roma community contribution to, 'the diversity and richness of the Harehills'. Meanwhile, despite the serious public disorder in Birmingham, reports indicated 'a lack of police presence'. West Midlands Police consulted 'community leaders' prior to the disorder, and Harehills was largely viewed as a community issue. The 'community leader' gatekeeper concept, when applied to some groups, but not others, introduces an element of police bias. Worst still, the Home Office X account referred to the post-Southport protestors as 'criminals' even before they had been tried in court, removing the legal principle of presumption of innocence. Justice for them was indeed swift – the disorder broke out on 30 July, with the first prison sentences announced a week later. Meanwhile, a suspended Labour councillor who pleaded not guilty to encouraging violent disorder last summer is going to trial in August 2025 – a year on. But allegations of impartial policing or policy aren't restricted to how the state deals with public order. Take the recording of hate crime, or Orwellian non-crime-hate-incidents (NCHIs) for religion. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are prioritised. The Government's secretive 'Islamophobia' working group, tasked with putting together a new definition should really pause until completion of the national grooming gang inquiry. That's because allegations of so-called 'Islamophobia' could stifle open discussion. But why does the Government not also define anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh hatred, whilst they're at it? Or better still – treat them all on one equal footing? After the targeting of a mosque in Southport last summer, the Government announced additional 'emergency' security funding for mosques to build on the existing £29 million fund in place last year, allocated to the standalone Protective Security for Mosques Scheme. But no 'emergency' funding announcement came forth when a Hindu temple in Leicester (and one in Birmingham) was targeted during the Hindu-Muslim disorder back in 2022. Standalone funding schemes dedicated to protecting places of worship exist for some religious groups, but not others. Although the Government will continue to dismiss claims of 'two-tier' justice, in April it was forced to introduce emergency legislation to kibosh guidelines specifying preferential treatment for 'minority' communities to, 'prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council guidelines and avoid any unintended discrimination'. As I discovered, there are many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing. It is time to reinstate equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their politics, religion or identity grouping.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
UK's biggest energy supplier is ‘on verge of splitting from tech arm' in £10billion demerger
OCTOPUS Energy Group has sparked a £10 billion pound demerger from tech arm Kraken. The UK's biggest energy supplier is planning to separate from its technology arm Kraken with plans to hire bankers to oversee the deal. It is expected that the demerger will take place in the next year and would see existing investors given shares in the newly independent Kraken firm. A minority stake in Kraken of up to 20% is expected to be sold to external shareholders. One banking source told Sky News that Kraken could be valued at as much as £10.25bn. It has now been revealed that Octopus is looking to hire bankers to oversee the demerger with Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Stanley Morgan invited to pitch for the demerger mandate. Kraken is an operating system which is licensed to other energy providers and water companies. Octopus Energy has around 7.5 million retail customers in Britain and a further 2. million outside the Britain, in January it announced that it was the country's biggest supplier. The firm passed British Gas with a 24% market share. The £10 billion valuation of Kraken would reportedly suggest that the whole group, including the retail supply business was worth around £15 billion. 1
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How has Ryanair changed its cabin baggage rule – and will other airlines do it too?
For all but the most seasoned travellers the metal bag sizers used by budget airlines have become an instrument of fear because of the heavy financial penalty incurred if hand baggage is too big to fit. But as the summer holiday season gets under way there is some good news for those who struggle to travel light: Ryanair has announced it is increasing the size of the small 'personal' bag you can take in the cabin for free by 20%. Yes. But it comes as airlines fall into line behind a new EU guaranteed bag size of 40cm by 30cm by 15cm. The current dimensions of the Ryanair free carry-on limit are 40cm by 25cm by 20cm – below the EU rule. It is increasing them to 40cm by 30cm by 20cm. Ryanair trumpets this is 'bigger than the EU standard'. It says the change 'will be implemented over the coming weeks, as our airport bag sizers are adjusted'. The size change represents a 20% increase in volume and means Ryanair will be accepting free bags one-third bigger than the new EU minimum. But that is the only aspect of Ryanair's baggage policy that is changing. If you get it wrong and a gate check reveals the bag is oversized you will pay a fee of £60. A larger cabin bag can be added to a flight booking for £6 to £36 depending on the route but, again, if it is deemed too large at the airport it will cost £75 to stow. Some won't have do anything. Rival budget airline easyJet, for example, already allows a more generous free underseat bag. Wizz Air's current free bag policy is the same as the one that Ryanair is moving to. The airline association Airlines for Europe (A4E) says its 28 members have started applying the bag dimensions which were agreed by EU transport ministers last month. 'This will bring more clarity to passengers across Europe,' says its managing director, Ourania Georgoutsakou. 'From city-hoppers to family travellers, everyone will benefit from the same clear rule across our members' networks.' Standardising cabin-bag rules has been on the Brussels agenda for years with the decision to settle on a size enabling frequent travellers to buy one piece of luggage that will be accepted by multiple airlines. All A4E airlines will be following the bag rule by the end of the 2025 summer season, it says, adding that 'carriers will continue to permit larger personal items at their discretion'. Not yet, but they could be. European consumer groups are calling on EU lawmakers to investigate budget airlines for 'exploiting consumers' by charging for hand luggage. In May, BEUC, an umbrella group for 44 consumer organisations, called for Brussels to investigate seven airlines, including Ryanair, easyJet and Wizz Air for this. BEUC director general Agustín Reyna said the airlines were 'ignoring the EU top court who ruled that charging [for] reasonably sized hand baggage is illegal'. The organisation was referring to a EU court of justice ruling in 2014 that said the 'carriage of hand baggage cannot be made subject to a price supplement, provided that it meets reasonable requirements in terms of its weight and dimensions'. In the meantime, Spain has become a battleground for the issue. Last year, its consumer affairs ministry fined five carriers, including Ryanair, a total of €179m (£150m) for charging passengers for hand luggage and seat reservations. Now low-cost carrier Wizz Air is being investigated, too. Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, says no. He is dismissive of the Spanish effort, recently telling the Guardian the country has a 'mad minister who's decided that as General Franco passed some law 30 years before Spain joined the EU, passengers are free to bring as much baggage as they want.' A Spanish court has now temporarily suspended the fines on three of the airlines (including Ryanair) while the matter is under judicial review, after a legal challenge. To complicate matters further, last month the transport committee of the European parliament voted to give passengers the right to an extra piece of free hand luggage weighing up to 7kg. Under the new rule, travellers could bring one cabin bag measuring up to 100cm (based on the sum of the dimensions) on board their flight, as well a personal bag, at no additional cost. (MEPs also want children under 12 years old to be seated next to their accompanying passenger free of charge.) The proposed law requires approval from 55% of EU member states, but if adopted after the negotiations due to start this month, would extend to all flights within the EU, as well as routes to and from the EU. The airline industry is predictably opposed, stating that the cost of the bag will be folded into overall prices, pushing up fares. 'Europe's airline market is built on choice,' Georgoutsakou says. 'Forcing a mandatory trolley bag strips passengers of that choice and obliges passengers to pay for services they may not want or need. What's next? Mandatory popcorn and drinks as part of your cinema ticket? 'The European parliament should let travellers decide what services they want, what services they pay for and, importantly, what services they don't,' she says.
