EU member states have endorsed tighter price-curb measures for ETS2, the EU’s new emissions trading system for buildings, road transport and additional sectors, amid concerns that the policy could translate into sharp increases in household heating bills and pump prices when it starts in 2028.
Ambassadors in the Council backed the European Commission’s proposal to adjust the system’s “market stability reserve” (MSR) – described by EU officials as the scheme’s safety valve – with the stated aim of improving price stability and predictability in the first years of operation.
What ETS2 is and how it is meant to work
ETS2 is a separate cap-and-trade market from the EU’s existing emissions trading system, but is built on similar principles: a fixed quantity of allowances (the cap) is made available and regulated entities must surrender allowances for their emissions. The critical difference is that ETS2 regulates emissions “upstream”. Fuel suppliers – rather than households or drivers – are required to monitor emissions linked to the fuels they place on the market and to buy and surrender allowances accordingly. In practice, the carbon cost can be passed along the supply chain into retail prices.
The system covers fuels used for road transport and heating in buildings, areas where many governments have been wary of political backlash. ETS2 was originally due to begin earlier, but legislation already provides for a later start, with full application now set for 2028.
Alongside ETS2, the EU has created a Social Climate Fund intended to help vulnerable households, micro-enterprises and transport users adjust through support for measures such as home insulation, low-emission heating systems and cleaner mobility options.
The price-curb debate: consumer exposure and volatility risk
The central political question has been how to prevent a repeat of the price volatility seen in energy markets in recent years, and how to limit the risk that a new carbon price on everyday fuels could spike abruptly.
Several member states have argued that, unlike large industrial ETS participants, consumers have limited short-term ability to reduce demand for heating and transport fuels, at least until alternatives are widely available and affordable. That dynamic, they say, could create a risk of sudden price rises and fuel-cost disputes.
In February, Reuters reported that EU countries supported stronger price controls designed to “tame” ETS2 prices and respond to concerns about fuel costs, with the proposed changes allowing the release of up to 80 million additional allowances per year if the ETS2 price exceeds €45 per tonne of CO₂.
The Council’s public summary of its negotiating position confirms it supported the Commission proposal “without changes”, framing the MSR adjustment as a targeted intervention to ensure a smoother start in 2028 while leaving the overall MSR architecture intact.
How the market stability reserve functions in ETS2
The MSR is the main supply-management tool: it can inject allowances into the market in tight conditions or withhold allowances when supply exceeds demand, aiming to reduce extreme swings.
EU institutions have previously built in multiple safeguards around ETS2. These include early auctioning arrangements to support liquidity, and legal provisions linked to exceptional energy-price conditions that can affect timing. A European Parliament research briefing sets out the ETS2 postponement mechanism in the ETS Directive (Article 30k), which ties a delay option to indicators such as gas and oil price conditions measured against specified reference periods, with relevant data points falling due by mid-2026.
The Commission’s November 2025 announcement on the MSR adjustment presented the changes as “targeted” measures to improve stability and reduce volatility for the system’s launch phase.
Politics: delay demands versus price controls
The push for stronger price curbs has unfolded alongside calls from some capitals to postpone ETS2 further. Reuters reported that Slovakia and the Czech Republic were among those seeking an additional delay, while Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg opposed reopening the timetable, arguing that further postponement would undermine climate policy credibility and investment certainty.
That split has widened into a broader political argument about the EU’s carbon pricing framework. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has defended the EU ETS as a central instrument for decarbonisation and investment, pointing to built-in stabilisation tools such as the MSR, while acknowledging the role of periodic reviews.
What happens next
The Council’s position is a step in the EU legislative process, not the final word. Negotiations with the European Parliament will determine whether the targeted MSR changes are adopted as proposed and how the final price-curb parameters operate in practice.
For governments, the balance is between insulating consumers from sudden cost shocks and preserving the price signal intended to drive investment into cleaner alternatives. For ETS2’s design, the key technical issue is whether the combination of an upstream compliance obligation, a defined allowance cap, front-loaded supply, and a reinforced stability reserve can deliver predictable pricing in the early years, without diluting the system’s emissions-reduction trajectory.
With the start date now set for 2028, the next two years are likely to be dominated by two tests: the legislative outcome on the MSR adjustment, and the parallel roll-out of national and EU-level support measures intended to ensure that households have practical options to reduce exposure to higher fossil-fuel costs once ETS2 begins.
EIB fast-tracks €3bn to help households ahead of EU’s new carbon market
