On 3 June, the Electrification Alliance and T&E co-hosted a high-level lunch debate at the European Parliament MEP Salons, bringing together senior policymakers, energy analysts, and industry voices to examine a question that has never been more urgent: what does Europe’s dependence on imported oil mean for its security – and what can be done about it?
Hosted by MEP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D), the room was filled with MEPs, member state attachés, and journalists from AFP, ANSA, Der Tagesspiegel, Contexte, and DPA.
Why this event?
Europe’s energy security conversation has long focused on gas. But as the ongoing 2026 fossil fuel crisis in the Middle East shows, oil is the EU’s deeper and more persistent vulnerability. The EU imports twice as much oil as gas – and the overwhelming share of that oil is burned in cars.
Since the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz in March 2026, EU member states have spent an estimated €24 billion in additional fossil fuel import costs. And beyond the direct economic hit, the European Central Bank has itself warned that fossil fuel dependence poses risks to price stability – meaning recurring oil shocks carry macroeconomic consequences that extend well beyond the energy sector.
Against this backdrop, weaking the EU CO2 car standards risks undermining the effort that has been made to get the EU out of its oil dependency, precisely when resilience and strategic autonomy have become central policy priorities.
The panel: electrification as Europe’s strategic response
The event opened with a keynote from William Todts, Executive Director of T&E, before moving into a panel debate moderated by Adrian Hiel, Director of the Electrification Alliance.
The panel brought together Isabelle Dupraz (Deputy Director, EIES), Ioana Petcu (Public Affairs Director, E-Mobility Europe), Marin Gillot (Energy Analyst, Strategic Perspectives), and MEP Pellerin-Carlin.
From the premise that the EU produces only 3% of the oil it consumes, but generates 100% of its electricity domestically (75% of it already from nuclear and renewables and that every car that switches from petrol to electricity is a structural reduction in oil import dependency) the discussion covered five themes:
- the scale of Europe’s oil dependency and strategic exposure;
- why electrification is a solution now;
- the trade-offs between fuel pathways;
- the long-term consumer case for faster electrification; and
- the intersection of industry, defence, and EU policy
The need to reframe car CO₂ standards as a strategic energy security instrument, not just a climate tool was the red thread.
Panellists pushed back on common objections. On alternative fuels, the consensus was clear: eFuels are not reaching final investment decisions even with mandates; biofuels are not scalable; and the hydrogen window for road transport has effectively closed. Battery electric vehicles have won the technology race, and policy should reflect that. In other words: internal combustion engine vehicles no longer protect households – it locks them into exposure to future oil price shocks that are, by design, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Oil markets are global. Even a fully diversified supply base offers no real insulation from geopolitical disruption.
On the China dependency argument, panellists distinguished building up a fleet of EVs running on domestic electricity is categorically different from a daily flow of imported fuel that must be sustained to keep vehicles on the road.
Isabelle Dupraz expanded on the overlooked link between batteries and defence, referencing EIES’s letter “Wanted: Batteries for Defence” – a signal that the automotive and defence industrial bases are more intertwined than the current policy debate acknowledges.
The panel also acknowledged that much of the legislative architecture that underpins today’s electrification push was either built, or actively supported by EPP MEPs, reconfirming that climate and competitiveness have never been a left-right issue. They are a transpartisan one. The risk of unravelling that work now is not just a political problem for one part of the chamber – it is a shared economic and strategic loss.
Regulatory certainty: a warning from the audience
Some of the sharpest contributions came from the floor. MEP Jutta Paulus (Greens) made an argument for the CO2 car standards from the competitiveness angle: “The EU has always had one single unique selling point: regulatory certainty. That has now changed. The Omnibus package makes us go backwards. That’s not what is needed. What we need is certainty.” she highlighted during the comments and Q&A round.
Manufacturers, charging infrastructure developers, and grid operators make decade-long investment decisions. A regulatory framework that shifts every few years, or that introduces new flexibilities that blur the end target – does not provide the stable signal the market needs. Weakening the 2035 zero-emission target, as the Commission’s December 2025 proposal suggested doing, does not just slow climate progress. It undermines the investment case for the entire electrification value chain.
A clear policy message
The event left a clear message for EU decision-makers: the car CO₂ standards debate is not only about climate or industrial policy. In the current context, weakening the EU’s most powerful electrification lever carries energy security consequences that extend well beyond the automotive sector.
As the EU works toward the Electrification Action Plan, the case made at the MEP Salons on 3 June was simple: Europe cannot achieve energy sovereignty while remaining structurally dependent on imported oil. The road to energy security runs through electrification.
