Skip to content

Text · Comparison of two versions

Changes from plenary report to adopted text

A-10-2026-0098 → TA-10-2026-0139

From
A-10-2026-0098 Plenary report of 17 Apr 2026
To
TA-10-2026-0139 Adopted text of 29 Apr 2026
Changes
Not comparable
Paragraphs
+10 added · −34 removed · 5 changed
More facts (3)
Title (from)
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the market stability reserve for the buildings, road transport and additional sectors
Title (to)
Market stability reserve for the buildings, road transport and additional sectors

These two texts have too little in common to be compared paragraph by paragraph (under 15 % of their paragraphs match): they are different documents rather than versions of one — for example a group’s motion and the joint text that was adopted.

Every difference

The full paragraph comparison, packaging included; long runs of unchanged paragraphs are folded. One part of the text per page.

Part 2 of 2: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

RemovedEXPLANATORY STATEMENT

AddedArticle 1 a (new), Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new): Article 1a / In Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, the following paragraph is added: / ‘Within four years of the start of the operation of emissions trading for buildings, road transport and additional sectors set out in Chapter IVa of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission shall carry out an impact assessment, including a distributional impact assessment, and an evaluation of the environmental, social and economic impact of the remaining allowances in the reserve under Article 1a of this Decision, and determine the appropriateness of partially or entirely invalidating those allowances. That evaluation shall, where appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.’.

RemovedBackground:

RemovedThe proposal is a response to an initiative of 19 Member States from 1 July 2025. In their “Joint non-paper by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain on ETS2 price uncertainties and possible improvements”, these Member States expressed their concerns about significant uncertainties regarding future price levels and volatility of the ETS2. The three main concerns included the uncertainty around the initial price level in 2027, the risk of price volatility due to the sharp threshold in the design of the Market Stability Reserve, and the insufficiency of the safeguards against possible high price levels as these could result in substantial negative social impacts.

RemovedTo alleviate the concerns around price uncertainty and social impacts and to strengthen the public acceptance of the system, the 19 Member States proposed the consideration of the following measures: to publish regularly information to better inform price forecasts for ETS2; to launch early auctions to reduce price uncertainty; to smoothen the MSR trigger mechanism to limit volatility, as in ETS1, and increase the released MSR volumes in tight market conditions; to extend the MSR lifetime beyond 2031; and to reinforce the price control mechanism.

RemovedThe current Commission proposal smoothens the trigger mechanism to limit volatility, it extends the lifetime of the MSR beyond 2031 and reinforces the price control mechanism with 20 million additional allowances in the case of a release. The Commission assures the additional release will occur twice within 12 months if the condition in Article 30h(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC is met again after six months in a statement included in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislative proposal.

RemovedExpectations of ETS2 allowance prices vary across different studies conducted. Studies taking into account an adjustment to the MSR for ETS2 also show a range. While analysis by Veyt expects a price of slightly above €60/tCO2e by 2030, BloomberNEF suggests the average price of the allowances under ETS2 after the proposed changes would reach an average price of €78/tCO2e in this decade with the price potentially surpassing €100 at the end of the decade. In addition to that, the consensus is that households will be affected asymmetrically with low income households being affected the most while the impact is also different across the EU with highest increases of heating costs in Eastern and Southern member states.

RemovedPosition of the rapporteur:

RemovedThe rapporteur considers the changes made to the MSR by this proposal to be steps in the right direction. However, the price control mechanism would still benefit from a sooner beginning of the intervention when the condition in Article 30h(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC is met in order to start mitigating the surpassing of the price level sooner. That is why the rapporteur proposes to shorten the period within which the distribution of the allowances from the reserve has to start in order to strengthen the reactivity of the price control mechanism from two months to 30 days.

RemovedAdjustments of the MSR should not be the main solution to ensure price stability and limit social impacts of the ETS2. Key to the orderly implementation of the system is the deployment of complementary decarbonisation measures in Member States which are essential for the reduction of fossil fuels consumption. The price elasticity of households is generally lower than that of companies which makes timely support towards energy efficiency, renewable sources of energy for heating and decarbonisation of transport essential. Decarbonisation policies are currently the most effective tool for ensuring the adequacy of the development in the prices of traded allowances and, consequently, the prices of commodities affected by them.

RemovedThe statement of the European Commission that it considers that, if the condition in Article 30h(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC is met again after six months, paragraph 6 of Article 30h should be disapplied in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 7, is an important part of the proposed strengthening of the excessive price control mechanism. As such, it is appropriate to make reference to it in a recital of the legislative act itself.

RemovedThe rapporteur also considers that the changes made by this proposal might not be sufficient to mitigate the potential of excessively negative impact of the ETS2 on most vulnerable households. It would be appropriate for the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of the system after the MSR is revised with this Decision to assess the adequacy of the social and environmental impacts of the system.

RemovedReflecting the concerns of numerous colleagues, the rapporteur has included a non-exhaustive list of options in the recital for mitigating the potential social impacts of the ETS2, and thereby supporting its public acceptance of the system across the EU, which the Commission should take into consideration in the context of the revision of the ETS Directive. These options are:

Removed- allowing Member States to temporarily not apply the system to residential buildings by way of derogation, provided the Member States have in place other measures to achieve the effort sharing targets;

Removed- strengthening and prolonging the EUR 45 price cap set in 2026 prices, and adapting the market stability reserve accordingly, including the frequency and volume of releases of allowances and the volume in the reserve if necessary;

Removed- ensuring the possibility for full compensation of the costs passed through to vulnerable households.

RemovedSuch measures may be useful to ensure the smooth and orderly functioning of the emissions trading system, including in situations where temporary imbalances between allowance supply and demand could give rise to excessive price volatility. All of these should be assessed on the basis of their social and environmental impact.

RemovedEven after the proposed MSR revision, the ETS2 would currently not contain sufficient safeguards for exceptional emergency situations. Current mechanisms in the ETS2, referred to in Article 30h (1) and (3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, which address price spikes, would in the current form allow for sustained and relatively sharp price increases without releasing allowances. That is why the rapporteur also suggests the Commission to assess the possibility for a stronger emergency mechanism, namely a stronger additional price ceiling imposed in exceptional circumstances.

RemovedThe early auctioning period should be used by the Commission to carefully analyse the development of the price of the allowance. It should then present a report to the European Parliament which would inform about the adequacy of the price control mechanism in light of the information on the dynamics of the market in the early allowances.

Sources & citation

Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.

Data source
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Retrieved
29 September 2026

Cite as

European Parliament (2026). “Changes between A-10-2026-0098 and TA-10-2026-0139”. Text, 29 April 2026. from A-10-2026-0098, to TA-10-2026-0139, reference 2025/0380(COD). EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/A-10-2026-0098/compare/TA-10-2026-0139?all=1&part=2 (retrieved 29 September 2026). Data: European Parliament Open Data, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/ (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-2026-04-29,
  author = {{European Parliament}},
  title = {{Changes between A-10-2026-0098 and TA-10-2026-0139}},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-04-29},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/A-10-2026-0098/compare/TA-10-2026-0139?all=1&part=2}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/A-10-2026-0098/compare/TA-10-2026-0139?all=1&part=2},
  urldate = {2026-09-29},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Text. from A-10-2026-0098, to TA-10-2026-0139, reference 2025/0380(COD). Data: European Parliament Open Data (CC BY 4.0)}
}