In a written answer on 4 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné defended the Commission's Clean Industrial Deal as a tool to reduce the risk of industrial relocation, while conceding that the Commission has not performed a quantitative study on how many energy-intensive companies might prefer US subsidies over EU compliance schemes. Séjourné's response, on behalf of the Commission, came in reply to a question from Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (PPE), who had argued that the EU's regulatory approach contrasts with US fiscal incentives such as the Inflation Reduction Act, potentially accelerating deindustrialisation.
Séjourné emphasised that the Clean Industrial Deal, first proposed on 26 February 2025, aims to strengthen the business case for decarbonisation and competitiveness in Europe by improving access to affordable energy, investment, materials, and skilled labour. He pointed to measures already adopted or in implementation, including the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework of 4 July 2025, which provides short-term support, and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund and Industrial Accelerator Act, intended to speed up permitting, support industrial scale-up, and create lead markets for low-carbon products. He also cited the Commission's broader simplification agenda to reduce administrative burdens.
However, the answer contained no new concrete proposals or numerical targets, and it explicitly acknowledged the absence of a quantitative impact assessment on relocation choices. Séjourné said the Commission closely monitors the impact of global subsidies on European energy-intensive industries and is implementing policy measures to mitigate such impact by supporting investments in European industrial capacities.
The response highlights a cleavage between the Commission's approach—focused on long-term structural support and regulatory simplification—and the concerns of MEPs like Bogdan, who argue that immediate cost reductions or compensation for the energy price gap are needed to counter the pull of US incentives. The Commission's reliance on the Clean Industrial Deal and related proposals suggests a preference for maintaining the EU's climate and regulatory framework while seeking to improve competitiveness, rather than matching US subsidies directly.
Stakeholders most affected include energy-intensive industries in the EU, which face higher energy costs and compliance burdens compared to US counterparts; EU consumers, who may see prices reflect these costs; and national authorities, which will need to implement the new state aid rules and permitting reforms. The absence of a relocation impact study may leave these industries without clear data on the scale of the risk, while the Commission's monitoring and mitigation measures offer some reassurance but no immediate financial relief. The answer signals that the Commission will continue on its current path, with the European Competitiveness Fund and Industrial Accelerator Act as the main future instruments, but provides no timeline for their adoption or for any new assessment of relocation risks.