NextFin News - Europe’s biggest steelmakers are pressing Brussels not to weaken the bloc’s carbon market just as the European Union prepares a July 15 review of the emissions system tied to its new 2040 climate goal. Salzgitter AG, SSAB AB, Outokumpu Oyj, Saarstahl AG, Dillinger and SHS said a looser EU Emissions Trading System would erode investment certainty, punish companies that move faster on decarbonization and slow the shift to cleaner steel.
The warning lands at a delicate moment for Europe’s industrial climate strategy. The ETS is being adjusted as part of the route toward a 2040 target of cutting emissions by 90% from 1990 levels, while steelmakers are also trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is phased in. Their message is that the two policies have to move together: keep carbon scarcity credible inside the bloc, and keep import competition aligned with the climate cost that domestic producers already face.
The companies said they want the system to preserve the carbon price signal by keeping the annual emissions-reduction pace at 4.4% at least through 2035 and by avoiding any measures that would artificially raise the supply of allowances. That is a precise policy request, and it tells you what the industry is protecting. The firms are not asking for an end to carbon pricing. They are asking for a system that remains tight enough to support long-horizon investment in low-carbon furnaces, electrification, hydrogen and scrap-based production.
That position matters because the steel sector sits at the intersection of climate policy, trade policy and industrial policy. If the carbon market is weakened, the incentive to invest early in cleaner production falls. If the market stays tight without parallel support for electricity, grid and infrastructure costs, the cost of decarbonization can outrun the industry’s ability to finance it. The steelmakers are therefore arguing for policy consistency rather than a rollback of climate ambition.
Their second argument is that the biggest competitiveness problem is not carbon pricing alone. In the steelmakers’ view, the main burden comes from high electricity costs tied to fossil-fuel dependence, infrastructure gaps and global steel overcapacity. That shifts the debate toward the rest of the industrial policy toolkit. A carbon market can create the price signal, but it cannot on its own solve power prices, grid bottlenecks or trade exposure.
“Dampening the EU Emissions Trading System would erode investment certainty, penalize companies that decarbonize faster and delay the industry’s transition to clean energy,” the steelmakers said.
That framing reflects a deeper split in Europe’s climate debate. For proponents of a tighter ETS, the point of scarcity is to make emissions expensive enough that firms accelerate investment. For heavy industry, the danger is that policy becomes theoretically elegant but practically unfinanceable if electricity remains expensive and border protection is incomplete. The steelmakers are making the case that Europe must not weaken the price signal before cleaner assets are ready to scale.
Why Steelmakers Are Defending a Tight Carbon Market
The steelmakers’ support for a firmer carbon market is not a contradiction. It is a strategic response to a policy environment in which the companies that have already spent on cleaner technology fear being undercut by slower movers. A looser ETS would narrow the difference between cleaner and dirtier production, reducing the payoff to early capital spending.
That is why the group wants annual emissions reduction in the system held at 4.4% through at least 2035 and opposes any artificial increase in allowance supply. Those are not abstract parameters. They determine how much scarcity is built into the market and, by extension, how strong the signal is for low-carbon investment.
“A strong ETS1 combined with a robust and fully implemented CBAM can reinforce Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and industrial renewal,” the steelmakers said.
The reference to CBAM is crucial. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is meant to reduce the risk that higher EU climate costs simply push production and emissions abroad. Steelmakers want the phasing out of free allowances to stay aligned with that border measure so that local producers are not left carrying the carbon burden while imports from weaker climate regimes keep their cost advantage.
That alignment problem is one of the biggest policy questions in Brussels. If free allowances disappear too quickly and CBAM does not fully level the field, domestic producers can be hit on both ends: higher carbon costs and continuing import pressure. If the system is weakened, the climate signal fades and investment decisions become less predictable. Either way, the timing of the transition becomes central.
The steelmakers are also trying to keep the conversation focused on the economics that matter most inside the plant gate. Electricity remains a major variable in electric arc furnaces, hydrogen-based production and other lower-carbon pathways. If power prices stay structurally high, the carbon market alone cannot make low-emission steel competitive at scale. That is why the companies stress infrastructure gaps and fossil-fuel dependence as much as carbon costs.
What Brussels Has to Balance in the July 15 Review
The European Commission’s upcoming review gives policymakers a narrow window to decide whether the ETS should remain the backbone of the bloc’s climate policy or become more flexible in response to industrial lobbying. The steelmakers are telling Brussels that predictability matters as much as ambition. Capital-intensive decarbonization projects only work when the rules are stable for long enough to justify spending.
That point is especially relevant for steel, where investment horizons are long and the transition depends on expensive assets that can last decades. Once a blast furnace, electric arc furnace or hydrogen-enabled production line is built, the economics are locked in for years. The industry wants the carbon market to reward companies that move first, not those that delay and wait for a softer policy outcome.
There is also a broader competitiveness argument embedded in the statement. The steelmakers say the real pressure comes from power costs, infrastructure shortcomings and global overcapacity. In other words, carbon pricing is only one slice of the problem. Europe can keep the ETS stringent and still lose industrial capacity if it fails to make clean power cheaper and faster to access.
That is what makes the debate so difficult for policymakers. The climate target is clear: a 90% emissions cut by 2040. The industrial problem is equally clear: the transition has to remain investable for sectors that already operate on thin margins and intense global competition. The steelmakers are asking Brussels to preserve the price signal while also making sure that the rest of the policy stack does not make the transition prohibitively expensive.
The companies said they want the EU to maintain the trajectory for phasing out free allowances while it gradually introduces CBAM, which is intended to ensure a level playing field for local producers against rivals from countries with weaker climate policies.
The coming review will test whether Europe can do both: keep carbon scarcity credible and keep industry onshore. If the Commission softens the market, it may win short-term relief from some industrial critics, but it would also weaken the signal for clean investment. If it keeps the system tight, it must show that power-market reform, grid buildout and border adjustment can carry more of the burden of industrial competitiveness.
For Europe’s steelmakers, that is the real policy bargain. They are not asking Brussels to abandon climate discipline. They are asking it to preserve a carbon market that remains strong enough to shape investment and coherent enough to support the rest of the industrial transition.
The July 15 review will show whether the EU still sees ETS scarcity as an asset or as a problem to be managed. For steel, the answer will decide whether low-carbon production remains a bankable strategy or becomes just another expensive promise.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
