Thank you very much to both, and let me remind you, as always, on a college day,

we have the pleasure and privilege of having all our team of interpreters ready to translate into all EU official languages,

so do not hesitate to make use of it.

Let's start with your questions, Fabio at the very back. Yes, thank you for the floor.

This is Fabio Napoli for the Italian news agency Public Policy.

He seems to be that the long term objective is still decarbonisation.

But, at the same time, a lot of member states are,

asking to weaken the ETS system.

So my question is,

how can you ensure that all the change that you are going to make on the ETS won't go against the decarbonisation objectives?

Yes, OK, I may start and maybe Commissioner Jørgensen wants to continue.

I think that,

what we have been experiencing along the years and very much in particular in these very recent years.

Is that the best Measure to ensure competitiveness in the case of our industrial sectors.

To reduce vulnerabilities, weakness,

dependencies from abroad is to think about how we can make wise use of energy sources that do not need to be imported.

It is very difficult to think that we can be competitive if we rely on something that we do not produce.

It is very difficult to think that we can be safe, secure if we depend on something that we do not produce.

And I think that the long term signals being deployed alongside the climate policies, including the emissions trading scheme, the cost of emitting CO2,

has been one of the most successful drivers in terms of transformation of the energy systems and in terms of modernization to the extent possible,

many of our industrial sites.

So we should not derail these long term signals, and of course we can learn from 20 years of experience.

There may be companies, not even sectors,

companies that have dedicated much of what they have got in terms of free allowance to reinvest in the opportunity to modernize their seats.

There have been their sites, sorry,

there may be companies that have found ways to promote technology breakthroughs and there may be sectors that have experienced the limits of the speed in these technology breakthroughs and improvements.

I think that we will count on this very important occasion when asking ourselves what we have achieved,

how we can improve the next chapters in our emissions trading scheme development.

But what cannot be said is that Keeping our economy captured by a system that creates lots of additional costs and harms and does not help in this efficient,

forward-looking and long lasting competitiveness is a good recipe in any case.

There was Interesting and interesting discussion in the at the EU leaders about a month ago.

And I think that it was clear that the way forward, even with the opportunity to assess, to discuss, to enter into the details on how things have been working, but looking towards the future and how we can keep on doing our efforts without deviating from our long term targets is broadly supported by the leaders and broadly supported by our Business community,

so I don't think that this is a real issue, even if there may be some trying to Lower down the speed even if there may be some taking the opportunity to fight against the decarbonisation of the economy,

but that's not broadly sir, that's not the way the economics,

the facts show where we can find our competitiveness and the modernization of our industry.

Not to forget that our main goal as European institutions, as governments,

is to come along with our industrials to ensure that they are successful in this technology race that is already happening all over the world. Thank you. Yes, so.

I think Theresa actually explained it very well, but just maybe to add.

ETS is the main engine of the decarbonisation of Europe. And It has been a success.

We have managed to reduce our emissions significantly whilst At the same time growing the sectors that are actually covered by ETS.

So this has not been a competitive disadvantage. It's actually sparked a transition.

And a transformation that has secured the competitiveness of many industries.

I will also say as a more general comment that Yes We are in the middle of a crisis right now that does hit some citizens very hard,

especially vulnerable groups in our societies,

that does hit some parts of our industry very hard, especially the high intensive energy. Parts of our production sectors.

And yes, we do need to allow member states to use state aid to help, but since our long term goal is to transition away from fossils,

anything we do that might directly or indirectly subsidize fossils needs to be temporary and it needs to be very targeted.

And we also recommend that it is not to stand alone,

that is accompanied by other efforts to,

for instance, electrify faster to change.

Fuels so that for instance if you have a company that is using gas boilers.

You have subsidies to change to heat pumps that we see more countries using the possibilities to support energy efficiency measures.

All of these efforts that we know worked during the crisis in 22.

Now we have even learned from some of the mistakes we made.

And have learned from some of the very good examples that were there so that we can direct and coordinate with member states much better. Thank you Nikolaus , please. Nikolaus Kurmayer for Euractiv.

Commissioner Jørgensen, you have yourself said that the EU must enact demand side measures,

people should drive as little as possible or potentially even take fewer flights.

My understanding is that today the Commission is pushing for none of this.

Why have you backed down from addressing the demand side of this current oil shock?

The second question, if I may, would be your demand to the co-legislators to finalize negotiations on the grids package by the summer.

Do you not fear that you are eliminating the European Parliament's ability to contribute to this legislative process in the service or to pursue a law that would at best come into effect in 2028-2029?

So on the demand side, we obviously still encourage member states to do whatever they can to bring down demand,

both because it will help.

Current price crisis that we are in, but also because it can help prevent security of supply issue in the future,

which specific measures member states will then choose to use,

we think it's best for member states to decide.

I think what you may be referring to is that I said that indeed the IEA's different recommendations were good, and I do think that in general we can not only trust,

we should also support the important work of Fatih Birol in the IEA and I did so in this case on the grid package.

The biggest bottleneck as I see it potentially in the green transition in Europe is that if we don't have the transmission.

I mean, we do deploy every year record numbers of new renewables.

The year before last, it was 78 gigawatts.

Last year we haven't got the numbers yet, but I expect it to be close to 90. This year we'll probably break records again.

This is all good, and this is one of the reasons why we're better situated at dealing with this crisis than we were in 22.

But if this is to continue, and not only continue but actually if we actually want to speed up this process,

we need to fundamentally also speed up the enlargement of our grids,

the deployment of new grids, the flexibility of the ones we have.

And this is why we put forward a grid package.

The grid package will do fundamentally a number of things.

One is it would slash the times that it takes to get permitting down fundamentally. It will introduce more EU collective planning.

So that we avoid the situation that we have now where things are primarily coming bottom up,

meaning that we don't have a common coordination of what is happening.

It's like building a jigsaw puzzle without looking at the picture of the box. We want to change that. And other other measures.

That will help facilitate cost sharing between member states.

If we adapt these things and do it fast,

then we can not only make the fast transition that we need more feasible, we can also help countries save money. Let me give you just one example.

Germany loses $4 billion worth of value every year. On curtailment What does this mean?

Well, it means, for instance, that in a country like the one that I know best, Denmark, we have wind turbines that sometimes when the wind is blowing. Are paid To stop production. Why?

Because the net, the transmission net in Germany are not well equipped to handle it.

So we use public money in Denmark to subsidize wind turbines and the creation of wind power,

and the Germans use public money to pay for these turbines to be shut down when the grid is not available. This is of course not rational.

This is in the interest of all countries in the union.

To solve and this is why we have also asked The Parliament and the Council to work as fast as they can and we will facilitate these negotiations the best we can and from the talks that I've had with rapporteurs in the Parliament,

it seems like they are not only willing to do this,

but they are very eager to do this because they also see these challenges as very immediate and they see the crisis that we are in.

As a factor that should lead to us Turning up the pace here.

Thank you, David Carretta, Radio Radical Italian Radio.

The first question, is on the request by 5 member states to introduce,

windfall profit tax on windfall profit.

Why the Commission is not eager to accept this request? Is it a lesson from 2022?

And since state aids are basically the answer in terms of helping vulnerable, vulnerable person or categories, I mean,

What about the fragmentation of the internal market,

the fact that some Member States do not have fiscal space to do it, and this tax could help. The second question is about Russian gas. Instead of accelerating. Electrification in some countries.

The one I know best,

there are important voices asking to stop the phasing out of Russian gas.

One example, a deputy prime minister, the Chief of the business organization,

the president of the biggest energy company, E.

They are all asking to stop the phasing out and start buying again Russian gas. What's your answer to those calls? Thank you.

Can you first and then the Commissioner, go ahead.

In my opinion, it would be a huge mistake.

To start importing Russian energy again and the The decision of the Commission is very, very clear. No.

We will no longer import as much as one molecule of Russian energy in the future. Why?

Because Putin weaponized energy against member states, because Putin used the energy to blackmail member states of the European Union.

And finally, because when we buy, if we buy his energy,

we also help indirectly support the war against our friends in Ukraine.

So it would be a terrible mistake,

and we are not going to in any way change our plans. We have adopted the legislation.

It's being implemented and soon we will be out of a dependency that,

frankly speaking, we should have gotten rid of many years ago.

Yes, because I love your two questions, because I think that your two questions allow me to stress the one related to Russian gas echoing and deploying a little bit further,

developing a little bit further,

the comments being made by Commissioner Jørgensen on why it is so important for our democracies. For our freedoms, for avoiding subordinating positions.

To develop and accelerate our energy package, why it relates to freedom,

to the capacity to decide and to count on affordable ways to provide the energy that we need.

So I think that there may be, for whatever situations, for whatever national circumstances,

there may be Member States where it has it is taking longer than expected to put in place some of the measures that we have already identified in the past.

And today we learn once again, we experience once again why we need to do it faster and better.

Yes, of course, we have decided not to accept this type of blackmail anymore, but I think that the electrification,

the efficient use of energy and the deployment of homegrown solutions are very effective,

also to boost other industrial and services related sectors.

So what we need to do is identify the best way to be performing and to be very effective,

but not to accept these voices that are driven by very legitimate fears. To try to identify short term shortcuts. To cover what it would create.

To cover problems that could create much higher problems at cost in the time to come.

Then on the demand,

the letter coming from five ministers asking for a joint common tax on windfall profits. I could make three comments.

The first of them is very political, but I think it is important. It shows to what extent.

Terrible circumstances as the ones that we lived in the past or the one that we live now.

Should not be used for the benefit of a very few. With no real increase in cost.

But Taking the opportunity to make more profits, impacting on the people,

the affordability of basic goods for the people.

I think that this fairness concern is something that no government can escape when there is a problem.

And this shows to what extent there may be Member States willing to tackle this issue through taxation.

The second comment is that, in fact, a common tax. Requires unanimity.

It may be not easy to find unanimity because there may be different views on how to handle this or it may be different views on how to technically develop.

Something that should apply in the whole European continent.

So it may make sense, as we do in this communication and we are very open to keep on doing and working,

is to identify the soundest manner so as to provide alternatives for those Member States that would be willing to take this measure,

to be sure that it is as sound as it can be.

But I think that this is already in the communication.

We will work with Member States willing to enter into this approach, but, as I said, for the time being,

what we cannot identify is the opportunity to take a common decision on how to implement a common tax all across the European Union.

Thank you, and we have several questions online,

so I would ask Ana Matos to ask a question. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, Ana, perfect.

Thank you so much, Ana Matos with the Portuguese news agency Lusa.

I would like to have more a political assessment on how worried, how concerned is the Commission about the coming months, also regarding the jet fuel and the the food in general,

also taking into account that we are approaching summer and some EU member states such as Portugal are quite dependent on tourism. That's my my first question.

And my second, if I may, when can we expect the state aid temporary framework,

and as my colleague said, some countries do not have the same fiscal space.

So if you could please elaborate on this, framework, thank you so much. DP, would you like to start?

Maybe I'll start with the, with the assessment, so. We have to be quite clear.

In our Way of describing which type of crisis it is that we're in now.

This is,

this is not a Short term Small increase in prices.

This is a crisis that is Probably as serious as the 1973 and 2022 crises combined.

And This means that we are looking into some very difficult months or maybe even years.

Depending of course on the development in the Middle East, but even in the best case scenario, it's still bad.

If we imagine that there is a peace tomorrow.

It will still take, for instance, Qatar, Probably 2 years,

maybe even more to rebuild their gas production. And transportation infrastructure.

So this means that the world market LNG prices will not stabilize or even fall as was expected. In the next couple of years. For oil it's a little bit different.

Probably we expect the production capacity to be able to be increased quite fast again,

even though infrastructure has also been ruined here.

But it will still be between 2 to 4 weeks and then of course that's the time that it takes to sell the products to Europe.

So even a best case scenario is a pretty bad scenario for the next months to come,

and we will have effects for years. Our worst case scenario.

Can look in many different ways, of course, depending on the development,

but it's clear that we are talking very far reaching and widespread consequences for our economy as a whole.

This is why we are extremely eager to try and set in place policies that not only help us.

Target and address the present price crisis,

but also prevent that we will have an actual security of supply crisis in the future. Last point, jet fuel.

This is the area now that is under most pressure.

And the IEA has estimated that within 5 or 6 weeks we can have a real security of supply issue.

And this is an evaluation that we have to take seriously and even though we're not there yet,

we can indeed end up in a situation where this will cause a real problem for us. This is why we proposed today.

Or rather we declare today that we will make an observatory where we have all the data needed. Where is the capacity? Who owns it? How much do we import? How much do we export?

Where is it possible to redistribute if we end up in a situation like this,

because we are very much aware that our economies depend, of course, on the ability for us to fly.

A lot of people are going on holiday this summer.

A lot of cities and regions and member states are dependent on tourism, and of course they are very worried.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much.

Let's take the best case scenario as described by Commissioner Jørgensen. The opening of the Hormuz Strait.

The end of The war situation It could mean the most effective economic measure.

Yes, of course, we need to work for this scenario to happen.

Even in that case, There could be Impacts That will last.

Even in that case, We are better prepared than in the past.

And even if better prepared than in the past.

There are groups of population, there are sectors that are more affected than others. The longer it lasts.

The more cascading effects that we will be witnessing.

But we want to prevent, to the extent possible, these cascading effects.

This is why we have been working in this targeted temporary.

A state aid framework that could provide some additional flexibility in the instruments that have already been adopted and that could come with some of the measures that were more effective in the previous crisis.

What we are presenting, introducing today is, I could say,

proportionate according to the knowledge and the impact that we have already identified,

but it is very important to stay.

Attentive to be sure and to identify how the The situation and the responses evolve.

It is very important to identify the measures that empower the Member States to do more.

There is funding opportunities in the existing context, funding available in the recovery and resilience facility,

in the cohesion policy, or even in the national policies being tackled, being managed at the national level.

It is important, as I said, to speed up as much as possible,

according to this Accelerate EU investment chapter.

The creation of opportunities, so crowding in private money,

understanding that it makes good business case to invest in Europe in these conditions and in this reliable situation on where we want to go.

And of course, the final very important comment, political statement is that both the national leaders But also the European institutions,

including the European Commission,

share the common goal to be attentive and to keep on doing things if these additional measures could be needed. Thank you.

And I'll take in the back there, yes, go ahead. Hi, my name is Matthias Schneider. I have a question for Commissioner Jurgensen.

He recommends Member States to do everything they can to reduce demand.

Do you recommend the European Parliament not to travel to Strasbourg next week as well. No, no, I don't recommend that.

That would have been a headline, I guess, if I did. There you go.

I'm sorry you don't have your headline, Christian. Thanks Jaya Krishna with Europe.

Commissioner Jørgensen, you mentioned that we need to act fast, so I'm,

I'm somewhat surprised to see nuclear power mentioned in the communication given that any investments in this is likely to be a decade or maybe more away from,

from deployment.

So I was wondering if you could clarify that and related on the question that you said member states,

it's up to member states to deal with any immediate measures to reduce demand.

For fossil fuels, I was wondering,

I mean that seems a bit it's a bit difficult to understand given the gravity of the situation that you just outlined.

So I was wondering, is it because of that this is politically divisive,

or is it simply that the EU cannot do anything? Thank you.

So there's a very clear distinction between very short term measures and long term measures in the sense that if we are to make legislation in the European Union and if we are to via our different procedures find financing. That obviously takes time.

So for instance,

one of the most important things that we propose is the expansion of the European grids. I spoke about this earlier.

Now we will also help finance this, so we've proposed in the next MFF.

To allocate 5 times more money than in this MFF, so just under €30 billion. This is very necessary.

This is very good, but this is in the next MFF.

And this is for grids to be built in the future.

Does it make it less important because it's something that we need to do in the next 5, 10, or 15 years? Obviously not.

The present situation reminds us how important it is to do it as fast as possible, and this is why we in the communication not only on nuclear but also on grids,

also on deployment of renewables, also on better energy efficiency,

also recommend and push wherever we can to more long term solutions.

But we will also put forward new objectives and new tools,

and that will happen especially on electrification.

And before summer we will present in the Commission an electrification strategy and that will include a target for the European Union on electrification.

So that's one example on the demand reduction.

So again, some of the things that you can do that would work tomorrow.

Are indeed national competency and is indeed something.

That they could do if they wanted to right away. One example is lowering taxes on electricity.

Some member states have done this,

and we have also in the communication other examples of member states that have introduced in this crisis measures that will actually work also very short term.

One of those examples is making public support schemes for changing gas broilers or oil broilers with heat pumps or district heating. Anything to add?

No, then we are coming to the end of our time.

Let's see if we can take still one or two, questions, please. Hi, thank you very much. Alexander Chituc from Reuters News. I had two questions.

The first was, how will the Commission make sure that the state aid measures it wants to propose to ease pressure of high energy prices on sectors such as agriculture,

fisheries, transport will be fiscally sustainable?

And the second, it says in press materials that the Commission will assist member states in the design of targeted, timely,

and temporary measures to address the crisis, including a temporary state aid framework to support the most exposed economic sectors.

Do you think the measures already announced by many EU governments in the past weeks match its criteria of temporary and targeted,

and how will you make sure that there is a level playing field between the governments that have more fiscal space and those who don't? Thank you. Thank you so much for the question.

We will come up with this temporary and targeted state aid framework in the coming days,

as I said, I think that the.

The thing that er was er one of the things that was most important when working in this in this memories that er We had the experience.

It's not unluckily we have the experience and I think that this, this helps to identify which are the sectors that need it the most,

how we can do things that can be fast, effective, and temporary as you say.

And we also try to have the views to count on the views of the different member states. This is important.

There could be member states thinking that there are additional needs or that the measures should be designed differently,

so we have been in quite a close contact with member states to ensure that.

What we present as the common framework, it can work in all member states and I think that this is,

this is key because you are pointing out on something which is Relevant. We don't want market fragmentation. We don't want to break. The internal market.

On the contrary,

we think that coming up with a set of possibilities that allow member states to do things reducing.

To the minimum possible extent, the risk of introducing a level playing field among the different players is key, and that is part of the reasoning behind coming up with this temporary framework,

introducing some additional flexibility for a very short period in some of the measures being adopted under the 4.5.

Of the clean industrial framework may be helping in more structural changes that could be a little bit more challenging in the current context,

but I think that this is key.

The additional related comment is what about the fiscal space?

What about the eventual funding from different sources.

That is not part of the discussion for the time being.

I think that as you know,

what we try to respect and to be quite disciplined on that is the existing framework.

What may come later on, we don't know, but for the time being this is what we've got.

The fiscal space, the fiscal rules, and the existing funding that is already available, and we are doing it, I would say,

making a proposal that can be very effective with the existing tools,

but as I said, we all need.

To be quite attentive on how things evolve and to what extent the response or the needs may may change in the in the coming in the coming months.

And we conclude with the last question here, please.

Thank you very much, Alan Johnston from the Financial Times.

Just two quick ones, one that seems not quite answered previously.

Is there a recognition with this package that, that windfall taxes and price caps on gas didn't work last time, in the last crisis?

And on jet fuels, how quickly can you put in place these measures because,

as Fatty Birol has, has warned, we will face shortages in Europe within 6 weeks.

Will we be able to stave those off, or are we looking at canceled flights?

The first question was asked and answered already. Indeed, anything you would like to add?

On the first question, I would say no.

There is no recognition that it didn't work.

On the contrary, I think that the fact that we count on this letter shows that for certain ministers, for certain member states,

this is something that deserves attention, and speaking about the situation, I know the best,

not because of my current capacity, but because of my previous capacity.

I could say that we took measures that were quite effective in order to protect consumers, for instance,

introducing a tax on the additional raise of prices when power companies felt like breaking existing contracts.

And Paying the penalty and offering a new contract, doubling or tripling the price,

and we said, OK, if you do so, there could be a tax on that.

What happened is that the incomes did not come up from the tax perspective.

But the contracts were not broken, so I think that, there may be different options thinking about this, and there could be different appetite and interest coming from the Member States,

and it is our duty as the Commission is to come along with those Member States identifying things that are not part of the common menu.

To be as effective, as fair, as sound as possible,

and that's what we intend to reflect in this communication.

No, just on the jet fuels, so the work is ongoing. We've already started.

Whether or not we will manage to prevent or limit the security supply crisis depends on the duration of the crisis. We do everything we can.

To make sure that we will coordinate better in the future, have new tools to have the overview of refining capacity and stock in our different member states,

but obviously we also have to be quite honest and say that whether or not we will be in a security of supply crisis.

Is primarily A result of what goes on in the Middle East.

What we can do is to try and prevent and limit.

Thank you very much to both,

thank you for your very diverse questions and our interpreters. I wish you a good afternoon.