Sittings · Document
Amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards ceasing the invalidation of allowances in the market stability reserve
Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety
Amendment 1
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
–
| Proposal for rejection | |
| The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.. |
Or. en
Justification
Overcharging the Market Stability Reserve (MSR) would undermine the EU ETS’s ability to maintain a predictable carbon price signal, and deliver long-term emissions reductions. Preserving the invalidation of the allowances in the MSR is essential to safeguarding predictability, to and maintaining the to not weaken incentives to decarbonise, and ensuring the EU can meet its climate targets. Price containment must not come at the price of the environmental integrity of the system. The MSR cancellation mechanism must be preserved, while the current ETS (Article 29a) already addresses price surging concerns. Flooding the market with allowances to address price increases (e.g. by frontloading auctions) has already proven to destabilise the market and create discontent among investors. Each allowance released back into the market represents more CO2 allowed to enter the atmosphere, each intervention to drive prices down punishes first movers and innovators.
Amendment 2
Pär Holmgren, Isabella Lövin
Proposal for a decision
–
| Proposal for rejection | |
| The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal. |
Or. en
Justification
This proposal weakens and undermines the current EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) by fundamentally changing the Market Stability Reserve. It reintroduces the substantial risk of an accumulation and oversupply of emission allowances, which in turn risks significantly undermining the effectiveness of the EU ETS system, its price signal and emission trajectory. The proposal creates regulatory uncertainty and risks delaying investment in clean technologies, and it unfairly penalises early movers. It would increase emissions and make EU climate targets harder to achieve. The proposal should be rejected.
Amendment 3
Alexandr Vondra
on behalf of the ECR Group
Proposal for a decision
Citation 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions2, | After consulting the Committee of the Regions, |
| _________________ | |
| 2 OJ C , , p. . |
Or. en
Justification
The CoR decided at its meeting of 22 April 2026 not to issue an opinion on this proposal.
Amendment 4
Silvia Sardone, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Roman Haider, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1) The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision (EU) 2016/18413 , (the ‘Paris Agreement’) entered into force in November 2016. The Parties to the Paris Agreement have agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. | deleted |
| _________________ | |
| 3 Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2016/1841/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 5
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1) The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision (EU) 2016/18413 , (the ‘Paris Agreement’) entered into force in November 2016. The Parties to the Paris Agreement have agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. | (1) The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision (EU) 2016/18413 , (the ‘Paris Agreement’) entered into force in November 2016. The Parties to the Paris Agreement have agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. That commitment has been reinforced with the adoption under the UNFCCC of the outcome of the first global stocktake on 13 December 2023 in Dubai, in which the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, resolved to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C and adopted the United Arab Emirates Consensus on tripling renewable energy, doubling energy efficiency, while transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner. |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 3 Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2016/1841/oj). | 3 Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2016/1841/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 6
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1) The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision (EU) 2016/18413 , (the ‘Paris Agreement’) entered into force in November 2016. The Parties to the Paris Agreement have agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. | (1) The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision (EU) 2016/18413 , (the ‘Paris Agreement’) entered into force in November 2016. The Parties to the Paris Agreement have agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. In order for the Union to contribute to the global temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, the Union needs to accelerate emissions reductions and, in particular, ensure the integrity of the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 3 Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2016/1841/oj). | 3 Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2016/1841/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 7
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1a) The ETS legislation sets an emissions reduction target for stationary installations, aviation and shipping of 62 % by 2030 compared with 2005. The sectors that are subject to that legislation do not all have technologically or economically viable alternatives, and a large number of electricity-intensive industries need support from European governments to offset the indirect costs of carbon, which places a considerable financial burden on them at a time when energy prices are soaring. |
Or. fr
Amendment 8
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1b) Of all the carbon-pricing instruments currently in force worldwide, the EU ETS imposes the broadest coverage across sectors, including electricity, heavy industry, aviation and shipping, as well as the highest carbon price. |
Or. fr
Amendment 9
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (1c) With regard to the objectives set at EU level, it is economically impossible for European industry to meet the decarbonisation requirement while maintaining its competitiveness. This incompatibility is due in particular to the disproportionate nature of the investment required. Energy costs and the continuous increase in carbon taxation are undermining the deployment of such investment. |
Or. fr
Amendment 10
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. | (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. To date, the market stability reserve has never released allowances back to the market and has exclusively operated in a withdrawal capacity, absorbing surplus allowances from the auction volumes. |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). | 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 11
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. | (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. Market stability must not be equated with a permanent reduction in the supply of allowances or the creation of the highest possible prices for allowances. |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). | 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). |
Or. de
Justification
The MSR was created as a stabilisation tool. It must not become an instrument that creates structural shortages or politically desirable price levels.
Amendment 12
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. | (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve (MSR) in order to address the historical oversupply that had accumulated in the EU ETS, and to anticipate future risks of demand imbalances in the European carbon market, thereby improving its resilience to shocks. |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). | 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 13
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the risk of supply and demand imbalances in the European carbon market and to improve its resilience to shocks. | (2) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 established a market stability reserve in order to address the imbalances inherent in the European carbon market, to improve its resilience to shocks and to ensure a sustainable carbon cost for businesses. |
| _________________ | _________________ |
| 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). | 4 Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC (OJ L 264, 9.10.2015, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2015/1814/oj). |
Or. fr
Amendment 14
Alexandr Vondra
on behalf of the ECR Group
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2a) In the context of the 2018 EU ETS revision, significant changes had been introduced to the market stability reserve (MSR), before it began operating in 2019.The intake rate of the MSR was doubled from 12% to 24% for the 2019-2023 period, and the invalidation of allowances in the MSR from 2023 onward was introduced. It is proven that an excess demand for allowances started in phase III and was cause by the shift to auctioning in the supply mechanism with a significant disparity between the sectors. |
Or. en
Amendment 15
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2a) Since the start of application of Article 1(5a) of the Decision (EU) 2015/1814 in 2023 until 1 July 2026, the MSR successfully invalidated more than 3.4 billion allowances. The invalidation of the historical oversupply has played and continue to play an important role in the stabilisation of the EU ETS price. |
Or. en
Amendment 16
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) On 1 June 2026, the Commission published the total number of allowances in circulation (TNAC) in 2025 in accordance with Article 1(4) of Decision (EU) 2015/1814. This publication indicates that there were 1 023 494 202 allowances in circulation in 2025, which corresponds to the higher end of the new upper buffer introduced by Directive (EU) 2023/959. This shows that the market remains oversupplied. In line with the Decision (EU) 2015/1814, a total of 190 494 202 allowances will therefore be placed in the reserve over the period of 12 months from 1 September 2026 to 31 August 2027. This is the equivalent of the annual emissions from more than 40 million gasoline passenger cars or more than of the current annual emissions from Poland. |
Or. en
Amendment 17
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. Given that, as the Commission has established, the historical surplus has been eliminated and the balance between supply and demand has been restored, the reserve’s intake and release parameters also need to be adapted to the changed market situation. |
Or. de
Justification
The Commission justifies the suspension of cancellations on the basis of the elimination of the historical surplus and the threat of market scarcity in the future. It follows that not only the cancellation rule but also the other parameters must be reviewed.
Amendment 18
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) No impact assessment has been made accompanying this proposal, despite it having consequential impacts on the functioning of the EU ETS. |
Or. en
Amendment 19
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability and ensure an affordable cost of carbon for businesses, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. |
Or. fr
Amendment 20
Emma Wiesner
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) In order to increase long-term market predictability, while at the same time safeguarding against an oversupply of allowances on the market, and in the reserve, allowances held in the reserve above 450 million allowances should be considered invalid. |
Or. en
Justification
Corresponds to the changes made in Article 5(5a).
Amendment 21
Mohammed Chahim
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3) An analysis of the orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve carried out in accordance with Article 3 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814 indicates that, in order to increase long-term market predictability, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances should no longer be considered invalid. | (3) To ensure an orderly functioning of the European carbon market and the market stability reserve and to increase long-term market predictability, while at the same time ensuring their contribution and alignment to the Union’s 2040 and 2050 climate targets, allowances held in the reserve above 600 million allowances should no longer be valid. |
Or. en
Amendment 22
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) Measures proposed by the Commission in its proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards driving competitiveness and cost-effective decarbonisation could significantly increase the supply of EU ETS allowances in the period 2030-2040. On top of the suggested two-phased slow-down of the linear reduction factor, 600 million allowances of cumulative surplus from the 4th trading period could be transferred into the 5th trading period at the end of 2030. In addition, 400 million allowances from the 4th trading period would also be gradually auctioned post-2030 to finance the ETS Investment Booster. Last but not least, the Commission foresees the auctioning of 250 million additional allowances above the cap to finance made-in-EU permanent carbon removals. As all these allowances may gradually enter the market, EU ETS emissions could be twice as high as the cap in 2040, without taking into account allowances potentially released from the MSR. |
Or. en
Amendment 23
Silvia Sardone, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Roman Haider, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), one of the flagship instruments of the European Green Deal, has imposed an unprecedented regulatory and financial burden on the Union's productive economy by systematically increasing energy and production costs for European undertakings. It has become a primary driver of the progressive deindustrialisation of the Union by forcing energy-intensive industries to reduce production, relocate manufacturing activities outside the Union or cease operations altogether. Environmental legislation should not come at the expense of the competitiveness of European industry, high-quality employment, the Union's manufacturing capacity and technological innovation. Therefore, Directive 2003/87/EC should be repealed in its entirety. Consequently, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 should be repealed, as this mechanism that was designed as a compensatory mechanism to address structural imbalances in the EU ETS has proved insufficient. |
Or. en
Amendment 24
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) The EU ETS is a cornerstone of Union climate policy. Over the past two decades, it has helped halve emissions from key sectors while generating revenues to support climate action and the energy transition. By reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and promoting innovation, the EU ETS strengthens Europe’s energy security and industrial competitiveness. The EU ETS still faces challenges, including excess allowances, free pollution permits, and continued reliance on fossil fuels, meaning further improvements are needed to align it with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. Overcharging the market stability reserve (MSR) would undermine the EU ETS’s ability to maintain a predictable carbon price signal, and deliver long-term emissions reductions. Preserving the invalidation of the allowances in the MSR is essential to safeguarding predictability, to maintaining the incentives to decarbonise, and ensuring the Union can meet its climate targets. |
Or. en
Amendment 25
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) An effective stabilisation mechanism must compensate for excess supply and scarcity of supply with comparable speed and effectiveness. The market stability reserve should therefore be designed with symmetry, so that allowances are released in the event of market scarcity as reliably and in as timely a manner as they are withdrawn from the market in the event of a surplus. |
Or. de
Justification
The current rules allow for extensive intake, but provide for limited and delayed releases. A genuine stability reserve must work in both directions.
Amendment 26
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Mathilde Androuët, Anne-Sophie Frigout
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) In order to better prevent any detrimental increase in the cost of carbon for the sectors concerned, it appears necessary to look into the possibility of lowering the percentage rate used to determine the number of allowances to be placed in the reserve each year, which is currently set at 24 % until 2030. |
Or. fr
Amendment 27
Alexandr Vondra
on behalf of the ECR Group
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) Data shows that since 2020, the economic intensity has generally been decreasing across certain sectors covered by EU ETS and a clear correlation exists between production and emissions, which reveals that the economic activity is significant in explaining in explaining a decreasing trend in emissions intensity. |
Or. en
Amendment 28
Stefano Cavedagna
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) In order to prevent market distortions and excessive price volatility, and to ensure predictability and affordability for businesses, the EU ETS needs to include an effective price-stabilisation mechanism ensuring that the carbon price does not exceed EUR 45 per tone of CO2. Such mechanism is to be complemented by an adequately strengthened market stability reserve (MSR) and country-specific benchmarks reflecting national economic conditions, purchasing power and energy market specificities. |
Or. en
Amendment 29
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3b) According to the impact assessment accompanying Directive .../... [review of the ETS Directive of 17 July 2026]1a, the MSR is meant to release 282 million allowances over the period 2030-2040 to fully deliver on its function to bring stability in the EU ETS price signal, providing a well-balanced environment for actors to invest in decarbonisation activities while leaving them time to undertake the necessary transformations. This means that the current size of the MSR capped at 400 million allowances is enough for the MSR to perform its function until 2040 and beyond. | |
| _________________ | |
| 1a SWD(2026) 616 final, Part 3/5. Table 12, page 136. |
Or. en
Amendment 30
Alexandr Vondra
on behalf of the ECR Group
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3b) Via European Energy Exchange (EEX) around 80% of EU allowances (EUAs) were purchased by entities without direct compliance obligations under the EU ETS, with a growing share of 49% allocated to financial sector firms in the primary market. Secondary markets trading activities in EUAs increased by 35% in 20241a. It is evident that the absence of standardised identifiers for EU ETS account holders exists, and that it is important to improve transparency and monitoring of the Union carbon market. | |
| _________________ | |
| 1a ESMA Market Report, EU carbon markets 2025, 22 October 2025 ESMA50-481369926-30552 |
Or. en
Amendment 31
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3b) A stabilisation mechanism should be able to respond effectively to both exceptional supply surpluses and exceptional supply shortages. The forthcoming review of the market stability reserve should therefore assess, in particular, whether its intake and release mechanisms remain balanced and proportionate under the changed market conditions. |
Or. de
Justification
The current MSR is much more responsive to surpluses than to shortages. Since the Commission’s proposal is based precisely on changes in the market situation and the threat of future scarcity, the balance of the overall system must be covered in the next review.
Amendment 32
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3c) In addition to developments in the allowance market, the assessment of the functioning of the market stability reserve should also take into account the impact on the competitiveness of the Union’s industry, investments, employment, industrial production, energy and production costs, as well as the risk of production and emissions shifting to third countries. |
Or. de
Justification
Through the allowance price, the MSR directly affects the costs incurred by companies covered by the EU emissions trading scheme. A proper assessment must therefore not be limited to purely internal market indicators, but must capture the real economic consequences for European industry.
Amendment 33
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 d (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3d) A significant and sustained decline in industrial production in the energy-intensive sectors covered by the EU emissions trading scheme may indicate an exceptional economic burden. Such developments should be explicitly taken into account when reviewing the market stability reserve and assessing its proportionality. |
Or. de
Justification
A significant and sustained decline in industrial production over a longer period of time is an objective indication of an exceptional burden on the sectors concerned. Such a development must therefore be taken into account when assessing whether the MSR continues to operate in a proportionate manner or further reinforces an economic slowdown.
Amendment 34
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 e (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3e) Exceptional and sustained increases in the price of emission allowances can affect industrial competitiveness and companies’ ability to invest. The Commission should analyse such developments without undue delay and take them into account when reviewing the market stability reserve. |
Or. de
Justification
The MSR must not exacerbate exceptional price developments. The recital therefore enshrines the obligation to pay particular attention to significant and sustained price increases in the context of the assessment of the system.
Amendment 35
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 f (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3f) In order to ensure transparency and verifiability, the calculations concerning the total number of allowances in circulation, the quantities placed into and released from the reserve, the reserve balance, together with the underlying assumptions and market indicators, should be published free of charge, openly and in a standardised and machine-readable format. |
Or. de
Justification
The functioning of the MSR is based on extensive calculations and market data. Their publication in an open, standardised and machine-readable format allows for automated evaluation and independent scrutiny by market participants, academics and legislators.
Amendment 36
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 g (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3g) In view of the decreasing overall volume of available allowances, the significant economic impact of the price of allowances and the rapidly changing market conditions, the market stability reserve should be reviewed at sufficiently frequent intervals. |
Or. de
Justification
The current multi-annual review intervals may lead to significant delays in correcting structural failures. The recital underlines the need for a timely and regular assessment.
Amendment 37
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 h (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3h) In the event that the Commission identifies structural market scarcity, exceptional and sustained price increases or significant adverse effects on the Union’s industrial competitiveness, it should propose appropriate legislative measures to the European Parliament and to the Council without undue delay. |
Or. de
Justification
Mere monitoring of observed failures is not sufficient. If significant structural problems are demonstrated, the Commission must present a legislative proposal in a timely manner so that the legislator can react.
Amendment 38
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Recital 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (4) Decision (EU) 2015/1814 should therefore be amended accordingly, | (4) The proposal for amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 should therefore be rejected, |
Or. en
Amendment 39
Emma Wiesner
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 1 – paragraph 5 a
| Present text | Amendment |
| In Article 1 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, paragraph 5a is replaced by the following: | |
| 5a. Unless otherwise decided in the first review carried out in accordance with Article 3, from 2023 allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances shall no longer be valid. | ‘5a. Unless otherwise decided in the first review carried out in accordance with Article 3, from 2023 allowances held in the reserve above 450 million allowances shall no longer be valid.’; |
Or. en
Justification
The threshold for invalidation of allowances in the reserve should be changed from 400 m to 450 m, to allow the reserve to act as a bigger buffer. All changes made to this targeted MSR proposal should be seen in the light of the July proposal on the ETS revision, and the broader changes made to the MSR parameters and rates in said proposal.
Amendment 40
Mohammed Chahim
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 1 – paragraph 5 a
| Present text | Amendment |
| In Article 1 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, paragraph 5a is replaced by the following: | |
| 5a. Unless otherwise decided in the first review carried out in accordance with Article 3, from 2023 allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances shall no longer be valid. | ‘5a. From … [the date of entry into force of this amending Decision], allowances held in the reserve above 600 million allowances shall no longer be valid.’; |
Or. en
Amendment 41
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 1 – paragraph 5 a
| Present text | Amendment |
| In Article 1 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, paragraph 5a is replaced by the following: | |
| 5a. Unless otherwise decided in the first review carried out in accordance with Article 3, from 2023 allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances shall no longer be valid. | '5a. From 2023, allowances held in the reserve above 400 million allowances shall no longer be valid.’; |
Or. en
Amendment 42
Alexandr Vondra
on behalf of the ECR Group
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 5 – paragraph -1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| ‘In Article 1(5), the third sentence shall cease to apply from … [insert date of entry into force of this amending Decision].’ |
Or. en
Justification
Intake rate should be set on 12% as in the initial legislation before the 2018 ETS revision. Third sentence has doubled the intake rate to 24% following by significant negative impacts.
Amendment 43
Mohammed Chahim
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 5 – paragraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| In Article 5 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, the following paragraph is added: | deleted |
| ‘Article 1(5a) shall cease to apply from [insert date of entry into force of this act].’ |
Or. en
Amendmen 44
Michael Bloss
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 5 – paragraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| In Article 5 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, the following paragraph is added: | deleted |
| ‘Article 1(5a) shall cease to apply from [insert date of entry into force of this act].’ |
Or. en
Justification
According to the Commission's own impact assessment accompanying the review of the EU ETS adopted on 17th July 2026, the MSR will release 282 million allowances over the period 2030-2040 to inject liquidity in the EU ETS, thereby bringing stability in the carbon price signal and providing a well-balanced environment for actors to invest in decarbonisation activities while leaving them time to undertake the necessary transformations. This means that the current size of the MSR capped at 400 million allowances is enough for the MSR to perform its function until 2040 and even beyond.
Amendment 45
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 5 – paragraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| In Article 5 of Decision (EU) 2015/1814, the following paragraph is added: | deleted |
| ‘Article 1(5a) shall cease to apply from [insert date of entry into force of this act].’ |
Or. en
Amendment 46
Anja Arndt, Marc Jongen, Ivan David
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Decision (EU) 2015/1814
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Article 1(5a) shall cease to apply from [insert date of entry into force of this act]. | Article 1(5a) shall cease to apply from [date of entry into force of this act]. Allowances remaining in the market stability reserve from that date may only be invalidated or permanently cancelled on the basis of an act adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. |
Or. de
Justification
The proposal ends the automatic invalidation of allowances above 400 million. In order to ensure that that decision is not circumvented by a subsequent implementing, delegated or other administrative act, any new permanent cancellation should require an express decision by the EU legislator under the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendment is directly linked to the provision introduced by the Commission.
Amendment 47
Silvia Sardone, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Roman Haider, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Article 1a | |
| Repeal of the EU Emissions Trading System | |
| Directive 2003/87/EC shall be repealed. | |
| Consequently, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 shall be repealed. |
Or. en
Amendment 48
Li Andersson, Per Clausen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sebastian Everding
Proposal for a decision
Article 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Article 2 | deleted |
| This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
Or. en