Nine MEPs from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group have asked the European Commission to explain how it will ensure that carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects receive adequate infrastructure financing, warning that the exclusion of CCS from a recent Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) call risks undermining the Net-Zero Industry Act and driving investment out of Europe. In a written question submitted on 15 May 2026, the MEPs argue that the absence of CEF support for CO2 transport and storage contradicts the value-chain approach of the Net-Zero Industry Act and creates deep uncertainty for hard-to-abate industrial sectors.
The question, led by Nicola Procaccini (ECR) and co-signed by eight other Italian ECR members, targets three specific demands. First, the MEPs ask the Commission to acknowledge that the lack of CEF financing for transport and storage is at odds with the Net-Zero Industry Act and to outline remedies to prevent capital flight. Second, they request details on what financial instruments—beyond a possible CEF budget increase or future CO2 regulatory frameworks—will be used to ensure that carbon capture projects already receiving Innovation Fund grants have the necessary transport and storage infrastructure operational by 2030. Third, they ask whether the Commission agrees that CCS should be given priority in high-level political dialogue with Member States and industry leaders to establish a coherent roadmap and end piecemeal financing, and if so, within what timeframe.
Policy context and stakes The question highlights a perceived mismatch between EU climate ambitions and actual funding allocation. While the Innovation Fund supports CO2 capture sites, the MEPs note that the latest CEF Energy call for proposals—worth EUR 650 million—excluded CCS projects, creating a gap for the transport and storage links essential to the full value chain. The MEPs frame CCS as the only sustainable way to prevent deindustrialisation in hard-to-abate sectors, and warn that without clear political direction and meaningful action, the global market may see investment shift away from Europe.
Expected follow-up The Commission is required to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether it views the CEF exclusion as a temporary oversight or a deliberate policy choice, and whether it plans to propose new financial instruments or a high-level dialogue on CCS infrastructure. The response will be closely watched by industrial stakeholders in energy-intensive sectors such as steel, cement, and chemicals, who rely on CCS to meet decarbonisation targets while maintaining competitiveness.
Stakeholder impacts - EU industrial operators in hard-to-abate sectors: face investment uncertainty if transport and storage infrastructure is not funded; positive impact if Commission commits to bridging the gap. - EU taxpayers and Innovation Fund beneficiaries: risk stranded assets if capture projects lack downstream infrastructure by 2030; negative impact without coordinated financing. - EU regulatory bodies (Commission, CEF, Innovation Fund): under pressure to align funding instruments with stated policy goals; moderate impact on institutional coherence. - EU climate policy credibility: a funding mismatch could undermine the Net-Zero Industry Act's value-chain approach and EU leadership in CCS; moderate negative impact if unaddressed.
← Atlas › News › Environment