OpenLobby.EU
Explore

U. S. Steel Košice, s.r.o.

USSK

U.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Dec 2025 · Steel industry, competitiveness, tarrifs

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Commissioner) and

30 Jan 2025 · EU Trade and Economic Security

Meeting with Ľubica Karvašová (Member of the European Parliament)

31 Oct 2024 · Eastern Slovakia regional development

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

22 Mar 2024 · Clean Transition Dialogue with the Steel Sector

Meeting with Margrethe Vestager (Executive Vice-President) and

22 Mar 2024 · Discussion of current challenges facing the European Steel sector attended by private industry as well as Ministers and official representatives of Italy, Romania, Poland, Czechia, Belgium, Hungary and Luxembourg

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

30 Nov 2023 · Clean Transition Dialogue on Energy Intensive Industries

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

26 Jan 2023 · Current economic and energy market situation of the EU (Meeting Slovnaft-100% part MoL Group)

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

30 Sept 2022 · Aggression against Ukraine, energy prices

Response to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive

18 Nov 2021

Dear Commission, We would like to fully support the comments and justification expressed by Eurofer in its position document (attached). As such we fully support the following: • The alignment of the Energy Taxation Directive with the objectives of other EU legislation, especially in climate and energy policy shall be compatible with renewable and low carbon energy needs and mitigate the risks inherent to the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries due to their exposure to international competition. Its primary role to facilitate internal market integration and a level playing field for the Member States in the context of taxation shall be maintained. • The revision of the ETD shall fully take into account the risks of industries exposed to international competition, and maintain those rules fit for such purpose, which include substantive provisions (i.e, exclusion from the scope of dual-use of energy [art. 3], tax reductions for energy-intensive industries [art.18]) and procedural ones (i.e., automatic alignment of tax exemptions and reductions with State aid rules under the General Block Exemption Regulation, in line with our proposal). • To support a successful industrial transition, the revision of the EU taxation framework shall foster the uptake and cost-competitiveness of both low-carbon and clean energy sources (i.e., low carbon electricity, hydrogen, industrial waste gases) (art. 16, Annex I). • The possibility for the Member States to apply a differentiated tax treatment between business and non-business sectors shall be reintroduced. • The possibility for the Member States to grant exemptions to the taxation of energy products supplied for air navigation and sea navigation aiming at products and goods transportation for commercial purposes under former art. 14, shall be reintroduced. • The implementation of tax exemptions and reductions shall be mainstreamed through the provisions of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Review of Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency

18 Nov 2021

Dear Commission, We would like to fully support the comments and justification expressed by Eurofer in its position document (attached). As such we fully support the following: • The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) should remain focused on its primary objective of promoting energy efficiency and refrain from double regulation with other legislation. • The energy efficiency target should be revised to avoid a cap on economic growth and barriers to decarbonisation technologies • The Energy Efficiency First Principle should be implemented in such a way as to not impose regulatory burdens on industrial energy consumers. • Cost-efficient solutions should be promoted through energy savings that reflect the saving potential of different sectors and technologies. Energy savings deriving from the EU Emission Trading Schemes (EU ETS) should be fully accounted for. • Low-carbon energy solutions should be fostered primarily in those sectors with the highest saving potential, such as the heating and cooling sectors, avoiding additional constraints on energy-intensive industries.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001

18 Nov 2021

Dear Commission, We would like to fully support the comments and justification expressed by Eurofer in its position document (attached). As such we fully support the following key messages: • The achievement of targets on the integration of renewable and low carbon energy in the European industrial sector requires inevitably the deployment of a considerable amount of renewable and low carbon electricity and hydrogen at large scale, making them available at cost-competitive prices, and realising the needed infrastructure (i.e., for all gasses and electricity). • Any measure should be set via holistic, transparent, and realistic assessments of the demand, supply, and infrastructure needs of the targeted sectors. The international competitiveness of industrial energy users needs to be taken into account among other determining criteria. • The target for promoting the consumption of renewable energies and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) in industry should be assessed together with reform of the EU Gas Framework since the legal framework for a hydrogen market and infrastructure is yet to be defined. Such a holistic approach to impact assessments should also apply to other relevant legal provisions. • Any mandate, whether indicative or binding, at all levels, on RFNBOs and RES consumption should be applied only if the necessary market and regulatory conditions and dedicated support measures (i.e., CEEAG, Carbon Contracts for Difference, IPCEI, etc) are in place. This is crucial for maintaining the international competitiveness of the sectors involved. • A complete and clear definition of renewable hydrogen should be provided in the text of the Renewable Energy Directive and should not be left to secondary legislation (i.e., delegated acts), to allow economic operators the necessary certainty to conduct investments in clean and breakthrough technologies. • The application of the additionality principle for both industry RES consumption and the production of RFNBOs must be commensurate enough to optimise the currently available and future supply of renewable and low carbon energy. • Access to renewable Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for energy-intensive industries shall be strengthened and supported.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

18 Nov 2021

We would hereby like to fully support the comments and justifications of Eurofer in its position document & that of Energy-intensive industries (EIIs) (both attached). As such our key messages are as follows: ➢Increasing climate ambition and rising carbon costs require strengthened rather than weakened carbon leakage protection ➢ The inclusion of the steel sector in the CBAM entails a high degree of complexity and risk, since steel products are traded with many third countries, under more than 100 customs codes, with different production routes and embedded emissions and with high risks of circumvention ➢ The inclusion of the steel sector in the first or subsequent CBAM wave should be linked to the timeline required for developing and proving an effective regulatory framework for a complex and sensitive sector such as steel ➢ Free allocation at full benchmark level complementing the CBAM is needed at least until 2030 to allow companies focussing on low carbon investment and to assess the effectiveness of the CBAM ➢ Any subsequent phase out after 2030 should be conditional to a monitoring system assessing the effectiveness of the CBAM coupled with an emergency solution to strengthen carbon leakage protection if needed ➢ A solution for EU exports is possible and essential ➢ Timeline and substance of the secondary legislation need to provide a predictable and effective framework ➢ Default values should be sufficiently high to avoid free riding when real data are not provided ➢ Other circumvention risks, including resource shuffling and cost absorption, need to be addressed effectively
Read full response

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

8 Nov 2021

Key messages: ➢ The higher 2030 target should be achieved in the most cost-efficient way: the one-off cancellation (rebasing) and strengthening of the Market Stability Reserve cause unnecessary additional costs for EU society that should be avoided ➢ Higher climate ambition and rising carbon costs require strengthened carbon leakage protection • Full benchmark based free allocation and indirect costs compensation need to remain on the basis of today’s allocation rules also for CBAM sectors at least until 2030 to allow companies focussing on low carbon investment and to assess the effectiveness of the CBAM • Any subsequent phase out after 2030 should be conditional to a monitoring system assessing the effectiveness of the CBAM coupled with an emergency solution to strengthen carbon leakage protection if needed • The cross sectoral correction factor should be avoided by increasing the free allocation share and/or by using allowances from the Market Stability Reserve • Existing rules on benchmarks need to remain until 2030 to ensure legal predictability. Any possible modification of benchmark definitions to reward low carbon technologies should not reduce prematurely free allocation for existing installations • Free allocation should not become conditional to energy efficiency investments to avoid double regulation • Unrepresentative production volumes affected by covid pandemic in 2020 should not influence 2026-2030 free allocation ➢ The Innovation Fund needs to prioritise industrial projects, and auctioning revenues from traditional ETS sectors should not be diverted to new ETS sectors (transport and buildings) ➢ The legislation needs to recognise the benefits of all carbon capture and usage technologies ➢ A comprehensive and more realistic assessment of the combined effect of all provisions on carbon leakage risk is needed for a well-informed decision-making process MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS STATED IN THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED.
Read full response

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and The European Steel Association and

26 Jan 2021 · EU ETS, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, Circular economy

Meeting with Juraj Nociar (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

22 Jan 2020 · Working priorities in the new EC

Meeting with Ivo Schmidt (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

8 Jul 2019 · Situation of the European Steel sector

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Vice-President)

26 Jun 2019 · Situation of the European Steel Sector

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Vice-President)

31 Aug 2015 · Presentation of U.S. Steel; Energy Union; situation of steel industry