Energy Crisis and Economic Integration: The EU Commission’s new strategic challenge

Translated by Giulia Pescarmona

The Euro Summit of 19 March 2026 set out the new priorities for economic coordination among eurozone member states, at a time when the European Union is, as its customary practice, straightening efforts to safeguard stability of the monetary area. Yet, despite ongoing attempts to strengthen economic integration within the eurozone, one obstacle continues to come up: uncertainty over energy prices. The energy emergency and the need for a coordinated European response have been accelerated by rising tensions in the Middle East. Up to now, the economic consequences of the energy sector had been largely overlooked, but at this point, it became clear that international military tensions not only carry geopolitical implications, but they can also directly affect the economic and fiscal stability of EU member states, making it difficult for them to comply with the criteria within the Stability Pact. Indeed, the energy industry remains one of the main cleavages of the eurozone countries, and in times of global energy crisis, this fracture risks undermining the economies of the states that share the single currency.

As reported by Eunews on 13 April 2026, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that national aid packages designed to cope with rising energy prices risk worsening public deficits, particularly in countries with limited fiscal space. In the absence of a common response, each member state is forced to intervene independently, introducing assistance measures for the social categories most affected by the crisis. The result is an uneven pressure on national budgetary position that threatens to undermine the Union’s economic cohesion. Divergent energy sourcing strategies and varying levels of dependence on external supplies lead to heterogeneous domestic responses to international energy shocks, revealing a structural fragmentation that weakens the EU’s ability to act on energy policy.

This weakness particularly affects countries that rely heavily on energy imports, such as Italy. ISPRA data published on 30 June 2025 shows that Italy remains one of the European countries with the highest dependence on foreign energy. The national energy‑dependency indicator calculated as the ratio between net imports and total energy availability, has fluctuated between 75% and 85% over the past three decades. After peaking at 85.5% in 2006, dependency fell to record lows of 75.1% in 2020, driven by the growth of renewables and a decline in oil consumption. However, in the following years it began to rise again, reaching 76.1% in 2023.

This dynamic makes clear how the energy crisis is putting pressure on Italy’s general government budget. The measures needed to mitigate the impact of rising energy prices on households and businesses carry a significant fiscal cost, and the same is true for all member states most exposed to the volatility of international markets. It is therefore not surprising that, as reported by Eunews on 9 April 2026, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has proposed discussing a temporary suspension of the Stability and Growth Pact.

The absence of a long‑term European energy strategy forces member states to resort to exceptional fiscal tools to contain the economic effects of the crisis, at the risk of undermining debt sustainability objectives in countries that share the euro. The Commission is challenged to find solutions to this macroeconomic vulnerability. Without stable European coordination in the energy sector, the Union risks increasing divergences among member states, both in terms of competitiveness within the single market and in terms of fiscal sustainability for the coordination of the common monetary policy, making it harder to preserve the stability of the eurozone.

According to Eurostat 2026 data, energy dependence among the Member States of the European Union shows significant differences. Countries such as Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Italy, Greece, and Ireland have limited domestic energy resources and exceed a 70% import level. Other countries, however, are far more autonomous, such as Estonia, for example, records a dependence of around 4.6% thanks to the use of its own resources; Sweden and Latvia maintain levels of around 30%, supported by an energy mix strongly based on renewables. In Sweden’s case, in addition to a very high share of renewable energy (48% of total demand), a significant part of the national energy supply also comes from nuclear power, which accounts for roughly 26% of domestic consumption. This heterogeneity explains why energy crises affect Member States differently, reinforcing economic divergences within the Union.

As noted by European Commissioner Dan Jørgensen in his letter sent on 30 May to the Member States of the European Union, the current crisis is not a temporary one. The Commissioner stressed that energy dependence must be treated as a structural weakness on the European agenda. To prevent the worsening of the ongoing energy crisis and to avoid new emergencies in a homogeneous and definitive manner, the Union must coordinate a unified and long‑term response. Jørgensen also highlighted how fragmented national reactions risk further worsening tensions in the internal energy markets. He was very clear in stating that individual Member States must act in advance and not wait for the crisis to deteriorate. The political message is evident: prevention is more effective and will cost less than a delayed reaction.

Although these are thoughtfully chosen words, the Commission itself has not been able to act immediately, except by relying on instruments already in use. In the letter, Jørgensen recalled that the Commission is already coordinating the filling of gas storage facilities and the security of oil supply. The only real innovation concerns a package of welfare measures that Brussels will present in the coming weeks to support households and businesses, an initiative designed to prevent non-aligned economic responses.

Sul sito web della Commissione Europea, nell’area dedicata all’azione contro la crisi energetica, si possono trovare tutti i dispositivi messi in atto dall’Unione negli ultimi anni a seguito della crisi energetica iniziata con l’invasione russa dell’Ucraina nel 2022. Tra gli strumenti emergenziali, la Commissione evidenzia il coordinamento degli stoccaggi di gas, gli acquisti congiunti e interventi sul mercato elettrico per il contenimento dei prezzi.

On the European Commission’s website, in the section dedicated to action against the energy crisis, it is possible to find all the instruments implemented by the Union in recent years following the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Among the emergency tools, the Commission highlights the coordination of gas storage, joint purchasing, and interventions in the electricity market aimed at containing prices. Yet these mechanisms were created to manage an emergency rather than to build a structural strategy. Although they have helped temporarily stabilise the market, price volatility and dependence on imports remain significant risks for the European market.

The statement by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, published on 13 April 2026, reiterates the temporary nature of the instruments used so far by the European Union. These measures, the President stresses, do not constitute a lasting response to the Union’s weaknesses. A wide-raging reform of the European electricity market has now become indispensable and must proceed in parallel with the acceleration of structural investments in renewable energy, the strengthening of European interconnections, and the diversification of supply sources. The measures outlined by von der Leyen represent long‑term strategic guidelines designed to permanently reduce the Union’s dependence on gas and oil imports. However, the research for structural solutions is made more complex by the peculiar nature of the European monetary union, which lacks external models that can be easily applicable elsewhere and can’t rely on solutions based on similar experiences.

Despite the political awareness of the need for fundamental change, the interventions envisaged at the European level remain, by now, predominantly programmatic and have not yet been translated into an operational and binding regulatory framework. The frequent energy crises of recent years demonstrate that, in the absence of stable and long‑term European coordination, the Union will continue to operate within a reactive logic, exposing itself to every new geopolitical tension and exacerbating the economic and fiscal vulnerabilities of the Member States.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026