Europe must quit Russian energy—including nuclear fuel—swiftly yet keep prices low enough for its industry. MEPs demand firm phase-out deadlines and bigger diversification funds while the Commission pleads for caution to protect affordability.
Double jeopardy of rising prices and security worries set the tone when the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) met with representatives of the Cyprus EU Council presidency and the European Commission on March 23. The topical debate on ending all dependencies on Russian energy, including a nuclear phase-out, morphed into a two-hour dissection of Europe’s most expensive headache. It is how to quit Kremlin oil, gas, and uranium without driving factories out of business.
MEP Eva Maydell (EPP/BUL), chairing proceedings, framed the stakes bleakly. “I think the current crisis that we find ourselves today shows how exposed Europe still is to the global energy shocks,” she said. Rising Middle-East tension, she warned, “hits our industry, it hits our households and our competitiveness.” She drilled home a single demand: “If the commissioner has one job to do — to make sure that energy is at a different price range than it is today.”
Energy prices bite
No one objected. Yet behind the unanimity on price lurked a row about sequencing. Cut Russian oil first, argued some deputies; others pressed for a nuclear embargo now. The Commission hedged, pleading realism.
Ms Maydell’s tirade forced Mechthild Wörsdörfer, deputy director-general of DG Energy, into early defence. “Competitiveness, affordability, security, and decarbonisation are the top priority,” she replied. Gas and oil “are global markets, there is enough, but of course the price impact is something which we are extremely worried” about. The Commission, she insisted, works “very, very hard” on taxes, levies, network charges and emissions costs to soften bills.
You might be interested
Ms Wörsdörfer’s reassurance won little comfort from MEP Andrea Wechsler (EPP/DEU). “One thing is clear for the EPP, and this is non-negotiable, Europe must be energy independent, never again vulnerable to Russia,” Ms Wechsler declared. She rattled off a shopping list: bigger budgets than the current €330m diversification programme, quicker permits, and a “realistic timeline for fuel diversification” that keeps prices competitive.
Money matters most, but safety still pricks. MEP Jutta Paulus (Greens-EFA/DEU), brandished a web find: “Ukraine’s nuclear power plants have been supplied with fuel by Westinghouse since 2005.” Why, she asked, had Europe not moved as fast? Then came the sting: “How come that France’s Framatome sees a need to cooperate with Rosatom, sharing knowledge, maybe even confidential information? Does the commission see a security risk there? Because I do.”
Numbers and timelines
Ms Wörsdörfer conceded the risk yet counselled caution. Five member states—Finland, Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary—still run nineteen VVER reactors that “depend on Russian technology”. Alternative fuel exists only for smaller designs. “I cannot give you an exact timeline, because with the current situation, we have to assess and make sure that security of supply is there,” she said. For emergencies, utilities hold a “stockpile which is roughly three years.”
Diversification is harder upstream. The Union depends on Russia for 22 per cent of uranium conversion and 23 per cent of enrichment. Even so, Ms Wörsdörfer claimed momentum. “EU industry is strong and ready to step up.” Euratom money flows to Westinghouse and Framatome to engineer substitute assemblies. All five VVER operators, she said, “have taken action.”
How come that France’s Framatome sees a need to cooperate with Rosatom, sharing knowledge, maybe even confidential information? Does the commission see a security risk there? Because I do. — MEP Jutta Paulus (Greens-EFA/DEU)
MEP Christopher Grudler (Renew/FRA), wanted more speed and clearer goals. “We need clear European targets for a phased phase-out and massive support for our industrial capacity, particularly in financial terms.” He reminded his colleagues that the US will ban imports of enriched uranium from Russia by 2028. He complained that Europe keeps promising action “in six months’ time… and then fails to deliver.”
Strategic autonomy, Cypriot style
The Council presidency echoed impatience but struck a diplomatic note. Nayia Spanachi, energy attaché of Cyprus, stressed a twin track. “Indeed, we need to reduce our global dependencies, but at the same time been able to find strategic partners globally to cooperate and coordinate and reach our common grounds.” The presidency, she said, chases a grids package by June and wants ministers to stick to a “general approach”. Her mantra: “We are hoping for an autonomous union open to the world.”
Affordable energy remained the touchstone. “Ultimately, the goal indeed is affordable energy,” Ms Spanachi told deputies, promising to shepherd legislation briskly through council working groups.
MEPs probed the order of battle. MEP Davor Stier (EPP/HRV), pressed on oil. Could the Commission “go first with the legislation on oil”? Ms Wörsdörfer hedged again: “On oil and nuclear, I cannot give a exact time… we are working on both.” She did trumpet the bloc’s ninety-day strategic oil stocks and new Adriatic routes that already supply Hungary and Slovakia.
Security first, sequence later
Ms Paulus returned to the human dimension. Rosatom engineers, she warned, now “walking in and out the fuel rod production site in Lingen” create fresh vulnerability. Ms Wörsdörfer recognised the worry but noted regulatory hurdles: any fresh fuel “needs to be licensed by different independent nuclear regulators.” Licensing, not ideology, controls the pace.
In a couple of years, if we look back to today, we’ll probably refer to this as a major crisis that has implications for years to come. — MEP Eva Maydell (EPP/BUL)
To avoid future shocks the Union must build wires as well as reactors. Ms Wechsler scolded Brussels for foot-dragging: “We haven’t even mentioned hydrogen once… if it takes us a year to negotiate, this is not the speed we should be working on.” Ms Wörsdörfer agreed. Last week’s Rotterdam forum, she said, drilled into “the regulatory framework… supply, demand, and also, of course, the infrastructure on hydrogen.”
Ms Spanachi assured parliament that council negotiators “are at technical level discussing all the elements” of the grids package. Ministers already debated it on 16 March; the presidency wants a deal before handing the baton. Solidarity, she argued, proves its worth only when cables and pipelines let electrons flow.
An unfinished exit
What, then, of the worst case? Ms Wörsdörfer sketched the contingency: cut Russian supply tomorrow and three years of fuel remain. Beyond that, Europe must trust Westinghouse, Framatome and time. “We share very much what has been said that there is a responsibility to go step by step, balance the security and affordability,” she concluded.
No vote followed, but momentum matters. Ms Maydell closed the hearing with a sober forecast. “I think in a couple of years, if we look back to today, we’ll probably refer to this as a major crisis that has implications for years to come.” She urged “a much more resolute way” than the hesitant shifts of the past.
Europe’s quarrel with Russian energy began with pipelines; it ends in the reactor core. The debate showed consensus on the destination—independence—and discord on the route. The Union owns a plan, a stockpile, and €330m for research. Can it ever prove enough to replace one-fifth of its reactors’ diet without raising prices? We will know soon.
