EU climate and energy policy in a polarising world: Discussing insights from the Ariadne Project

In its proposal to amend the EU climate neutrality framework, the Commission states that for designing the policy architecture beyond 2030, “it will examine how simplification and flexibilities across sectors could facilitate the achievement of the 2040 target”. Simplicity is essential to lower transaction cost and fosters investment for the low-carbon transition. Flexibilities can allow a more efficient allocation of scarce resources (land, labour, capital) across sectors, technologies and time in order to keep overall cost of achieving net-zero modest. Within this workshop we discuss how simplification and flexibilities could be used without risking a watering down of targets and ambition.

The starting point for discussion is the proposed post-2030 architecture, specifically its use of flexibility mechanisms under the Paris Agreement (Art. 6 mechanisms) and the effect of EU climate targets on Member States. The premise is thereby an overall credible new architecture to incentivize efficient investments; key to that is a controlled convergence approach of its various compliance systems (ETS, ESR, LULUCF regulation). An important ramification could be to develop the ETS an open system (“hub”) going forward and establish regulatory docking points to link-up CDR, international credits and the LULUCF sector already in the next round of reforms .

Which groups should receive support in the energy transition? Vulnerability vs. Deservingness for Designing Relief Measures.
The energy transition is creating new social realities and divides. While some groups benefit, others experience the transition as a burden or perceive it as unfair because they or certain societal groups are disproportionately affected, potentially triggering public opposition. In response, policymakers and researchers have predominantly relied on identifying vulnerable groups using objective criteria such as income or energy poverty risk, and then designing targeted relief measures accordingly. However, research on public support for social policies reveals that fairness evaluations extend beyond the objective need (vulnerability). People assess the deservingness of societal groups to receive support measures also based on identity (similarity or social proximity), control (responsibility for the circumstances), effort (to improve circumstances or contributions), and reciprocity (contributions to society). This means perceptions of who deserves support play a vital role in shaping policy acceptance. This session discusses whether the concept of deservingness should replace or complement vulnerability as a guiding principle for designing relief measures in climate policy, and explores the implications. It will explore how deservingness can be operationalized using both objective and subjective indicators and integrated into policymaking.

Coordinated energy infrastructure development – the EU electricity interconnection target for 2030 and beyond
The development of appropriate infrastructure is the basis for a functioning internal electricity market within the EU. Hence, the European Council in 2014 called for the EU Member States to pursue an interconnection target of 10 % until 2020 and 15 % to 2030. Today, the EU Governance Regulation lists this target as one of the “Union's 2030 targets for energy and climate”, Art. 2(11) Regulation 1999/2018/EU. The European Commission has announced a proposal for a European Grids Package for the beginning of 2026. 
Against this background, this workshop is intended to present our research on the legal nature and content of the interconnection target, i.e. explore who is obligated to do what. We will then look at the impact of the 15 %-target for 2030 on the energy system and the EU’s climate protection ambitions, and examine scenarios for the time beyond 2030.  A panel of experts will be invited to share their views and discuss with us. Some time is scheduled for questions from the audience. 

Despite an ambitious vision in the Clean Industrial Deal, the transformation of the EU’s industrial base toward a low-carbon future has yet to take off. The combined pressures of the energy crisis and geopolitical tensions have placed energy-intensive industries—such as steel, chemicals, and cement—under severe strain. Faced with rising costs and competitive pressures, some sectors have begun to push back against the EU’s climate architecture as being too ambitious. The result is a climate investment landscape marked by uncertainty. Volatile carbon prices, slow progress in scaling key technologies like green hydrogen, and delayed infrastructure investments—particularly in pipelines and grids—have dampened confidence in the transition even further. As Europe seeks to reconcile its industrial competitiveness with its decarbonisation commitments, questions arise about the geography and governance of its industrial future.

Against this background, this session aims to discuss the regional and sectoral futures that are emerging as the EU’s low-carbon transition takes shape. How can the EU’s climate policy framework give “breathing room” to its industry without undermining the credibility and predictability required for investment? How might the market structure/geography change -- status quo, strong renewable pull, or more diversified supply chain (e.g. green iron in one country, steel production in another)? And lastly, how could and should the EU support diversification, also considering state aid rules and the internal market?

Due to the finite number of emissions allowances, the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) is facing an end game situation. Several reforms have been proposed and are being discussed to prepare the EU ETS for a time when no new emissions allowances will be issued, including but not limited to the inclusion of new sectors or new types of allowances. With the EU ETS being a climate protection measures, and thus adopted and reformed based on the EU’s respective competence under Art. 192 AEUV, some concerns exist as regards the right legislative procedure for respective reforms. So far, Art. 192(1) AEUV and the ordinary legislative procedure (with majority voting in the European Parliament and the Council) was used. However, for reforms “primarily of fiscal nature” and those that signifcantly impact the Member States’ energy souvereignty, the special legislative procedure with unanimity in the Council is prescribed. Certainly, thus, any reform of the EU ETS will require the political will of the EU legislator.

This session is intended for scientists and policymakers, as well as other stakeholders, interested in the development of the EU ETS. It will include a presentation on the legal basis for a(ny) reform of the EU ETS, and feature a discussion of both the legal and political aspects of such reform.

The gradual integration of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is widely seen as a crucial step toward achieving long-term climate objectives. At the same time, there remains large uncertainty in terms of cost, quantities and quality CDR suppliers can provide. Separate CDR targets or limits have consequently been proposed to accelerate deployment while avoiding strategic abatement delays or environmental risks that could undermine policy credibility. However, it is questionable whether strict volume limits are suitable to address potential policy and market failures associated with a CDR integration. In addition, questions remain on how to put them into practice, i.e. on the “why” and “how” behind target design and their evolution over time.

With this session, we argue that -- to take the CDR integration debate to the next level -- a shift is required from fixed volume limits toward clearly defined rules. Two key questions are being addressed: How can a credible CDR integration and scale-up rules be designed that ensure a robust, future-proof carbon market? What is the underlying logic behind these rule, i.e. what objectives should they serve? To this end, the session explores the purpose, design logic, and dynamic evolution of CDR integration rules and support instruments within the context of the EU ETS. It examines how they can be structured to unlock learning, safeguard abatement incentives, address environmental concerns, and create a credible pathway for CDR integration.