This study compares the impact of subsidies and renewable energy costs on the competitiveness of low-carbon steelmaking in the US and the EU, finding that subsidies play a larger role in reducing costs than renewable energy, potentially leading to competitive advantages in jurisdictions with stronger industrial policies. The paper highlights a dilemma between ensuring a level playing field and accelerating climate action.
Sparks fly as a worker takes a sample of molten iron flowing from a blast furnace at the Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe steelworks in Duisburg, Germany.
Photo: Sean Gallup / Getty Images
The nexus of climate policy and “competitiveness”—how to transition to clean energy while ensuring a competitive economy—is a concern on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States and the European Union, there has been an attempt to resolve the issue by turning towards green industrial policy and subsidies for low-carbon production, sparking a debate on the merits and risks of a ‘subsidy race’.
In this paper, the authors conduct a transparent and quantified study of how subsidies affect the cost of low-carbon steelmaking as a case of industrial policy in a low-carbon transition. They first map subsidy intervention points across the steel supply chain in the US and the EU, showing how subsidies can cumulate over several segments. Afterwards, they use a bottom-up techno-economic model to quantify and compare subsidies with cost components including raw materials, energy, and labour costs in four hypothetical cases in Ohio, West Virginia, Germany, and Spain. The authors discuss the subsidy regimes and conclude that there is a dilemma between an equal policy playing field and rapid action on climate change.
