Teresa Ribera: "We don't want to escalate the conflict with the US, but we don't want to be naive either."

Teresa Ribera (Madrid, 1969), Executive Vice President and Commissioner for Clean, Fair, and Competitive Transition, became Ursula von der Leyen's deputy, tasked with defending the European green agenda and maintaining a firm grip on the complex competition policy during the turbulent times of the Donald Trump administration. She welcomed La Vanguardia to her office at the Commission, amid the acceleration of trade negotiations with Washington.

He's been in office for over five months. What a five months...

The world we face today is nothing like the one we would have imagined relatively recently. In all these months, we have seen how important it is to defend Europe's value in such a challenging world, in which some question multilateralism. We see how different actors use energy and trade as very important weapons of economic warfare, not just traditional weapons of war, which unfortunately are also knocking at our door. So yes, I am here at a particularly challenging time, but with the pride of knowing that this is a project worth working hard for.

The arrival of Trump No one imagined the volatility with which the United States changes its mind.

We knew there were curveballs ahead when Trump was elected. Was Europe really prepared for what's coming?

No one imagined two constants we've seen in recent months. One is the permanent challenge to the world order, to the liberal order, which has taken so many decades of work to build and whose origin was the US itself. And the other is the volatility with which it changes its mind regarding how it relates to the rest. What we've seen in the famous tariff scale, the abrupt and massive cuts in the public budget, the creation of a department to eliminate the Department of Education, or the dissolution of all USAID development cooperation programs, unfortunately with the neediest countries, works against global stability, but also against progress in the US and its capacity for influence. And this puts the role that the EU can play at the forefront.

The emptiness of the United States “Europe is at the forefront of maintaining a peaceful world.”

Which is it?

Obviously, it can't replace everything the U.S. leaves vacant, but it does place us at the forefront of the responsibility of maintaining a peaceful world based on cooperation, establishing or strengthening other political, economic, and trade relations with the rest of the world, and trying to ensure that we can count on those who have always been our partners, the U.S., as soon as possible.

Is there progress in trade negotiations? What is Europe willing to offer?

What we're seeing isn't a correct identification of the problems. Sure, global trade has aspects that could be improved, but the solution is to sit around the table to see what they are and whether there are imbalances in the way these flows of goods and services are produced that could jeopardize environmental and social sustainability standards, or a subsidy that at a given moment could cause distortions in the industry of the countries where these goods are received. I think it's perfectly fine to correct the unpredictability in the supply of raw materials. What can't be done is to say that the way to solve the problems of domestic demand or of US industry depends on imposing a 50% tariff on Lesotho, one of the least developed countries in the world, where the vast majority of its working population works in denim production, which is essential for the manufacture of jeans in the US. I don't think the terms on which President Donald Trump has established his relationship with others are those of a balanced negotiation, and that they don't even correctly identify where the problems may lie. Fortunately, the US accounts for about 13% of world trade.

Trade war “What we are seeing is not a correct identification of the problems.”

And the rest?

There's 87% of the rest of the world, and we'll continue talking and seeing what happens. Our relationship with the US and the EU is very important. We have no interest in escalating conflicts, but we shouldn't be naive, either, or sit idly by, waiting for unfavorable conditions imposed on our industry. Two people can't fight if one doesn't want to, but if one wants to, the other has to be prepared to defend itself.

Is the path to resolving the conflict the one seen in China and the United Kingdom?

The only agreement that's been finalized is with the United Kingdom. Nothing has been finalized with China, but we have seen a de-escalation. This has been greatly appreciated by the markets. We see how the medium-term US bond, at a certain point, began to lose strength, how the dollar began to lose strength, and how, however, the Mexican peso and other markets gained strength. The space that is abandoned is occupied by others, whether in political terms, which could be the EU, or China, or third parties, or from an economic perspective. The economic impact on American society and American investors is probably also taken into account, which ends up being a very powerful incentive to rethink their measures.

Truce with China “The impact on American society is an incentive to rethink measures.”

We're preparing for a possible list of tariffs on goods, but will services also be targeted?

It's one of the great paradoxes. The White House team has taken as a reference the imbalances in the balance of trade in goods, where there is a slightly advantageous position for the EU, which produces competitive, high-quality goods that enter the American market. If the same analysis is performed in relation to the balance of trade linked to services, things change. We consume more services from the US than they do from services from the EU. This has a lot to do with the success of the digital economy, in which American companies are very well positioned, it has to do with energy services and it has to do with financial services. I think it's a mistake to use these types of references when imposing barriers to free trade.

An EU-China summit is planned. Do they fear a flood of Chinese products after the tariff crisis? Should Europe move closer to Beijing?

When one aspires to consolidate relations of peace, cooperation, and improve the quality of life, one must talk to everyone. One must be firm when violations of international law, the United Nations Charter, or previously agreed-upon rules occur. At the same time, European authorities have a clear obligation—and this is part of my responsibility, as a matter of competence—to be very transparent and very firm regarding the use of state aid and subsidies. We demand a high level of worker protection from our industry; we are not willing to accept undignified or poorly paid working conditions, and a high level of socio-environmental protection. And if industries comply, it is very important to ensure that anyone interested in participating in our market has a regime that ensures they comply with the same rules. We must continue talking with China; we must reach an understanding in all areas, but we must also be firm when necessary.

Bureaucracy It makes no sense to take advantage of the economic context to shelve the green agenda.”

Recently, Apple and Meta received fines of $500 million and $200 million. Are these amounts sufficient to curb this new digital oligarchy? Was there a temptation to delay them so as not to anger Trump?

We're talking about the implementation of new legislation, the directive regulating the proper functioning of digital markets, which was adopted precisely because we couldn't correct them by simply imposing fines on behaviors that ran counter to the proper functioning of the market. They paid the fine, no matter how large it was, but didn't make any changes to their business model. So we decided to do it the other way around. To adopt regulations that would allow us to determine in advance what could and couldn't be done and which had to be respected. And this is the most important change in relation to the digital market, precisely to ensure that these extremely high market concentrations don't occur. It's the economic reality of today, and it reduces the possibility of new operators offering innovative products or of consumers having the possibility to choose between different options. This regulation has been in force for just over a year and can sanction behaviors for no more than this year. We've done several things.

Business partners “We must continue talking with China, but we must also be firm when necessary.”

Which ones would you highlight?

First, we've identified how improvements have already occurred. For example, the ability to remove one of the browsers that came standard and opt for another has made it easier for other browsers with a smaller market share to gain a much larger presence. You're no longer tied to the browser that Apple offers you or that you're offered by when you buy an iPhone. What's happening? There have been two cases where we believe a violation was being committed, and we've accumulated enough evidence to be able to impose sanctions. But there's a second aspect that's very important to avoid the concern you're raising: a deadline is set for compliance. If compliance is not met after that deadline, what will happen is that competition authorities will be able to impose daily coercive fines for each day of non-compliance that continues. In other words, there's a clear incentive to comply.

Financing "I was surprised by the assessment of the aid to two Belgian nuclear plants."

The European Commission wants to reduce red tape to help companies gain competitiveness and has reduced environmental obligations. They've given the automotive industry more time to comply with emissions limits. Are you worried about the green agenda?

In the previous term, we achieved something extremely important: having clear objectives and a shared vision of where we want to go. In this term, our obligation is to deepen a very significant transformation of the economy and find a way to make those objectives achievable. This is, I would say, a major restructuring of many elements. It's true that along the way we've identified several things. One, if it can be simplified, all the better. What's unacceptable is the pretension of some, not to make it simple, but to forget about the shared objectives. Thinking about intelligent use of energy, and also ensuring it's clean so it doesn't cause us problems, isn't ideological; it's intelligent. It's a factor of competitiveness, as I pointed out earlier with the electric car, which has been the focus of the Chinese industry for 15 years now and is, therefore, several years ahead of us. Our obligation is to keep it simple. Could there be people who want to take advantage of a complex context like the one we're experiencing to shelve the agenda? Sure. Does it make sense? None. We would find ourselves just around the corner, having stopped investing in generating opportunities, and instead having no choice but to face the costs. That's unavoidable.

The causes of the Iberian blackout are still being investigated. Was it the fault of renewable energy?

It's a situation that has been very shocking for everyone, and we'll surely learn lessons from it once we understand exactly what happened. It also confirms something we've been working on for a long time. We need more interconnections because that fluctuation would have been diluted, but it would also have allowed us to recover more quickly. We need more investment in the network, not only in network expansion, but also in the intelligent operation of those networks and their operational capacity. In fact, when I came to power in 2018, Red Eléctrica was investing around €400 million a year. Today, it invests €1.4 billion a year. We must continue investing in more interconnections, better network management capacity, and more storage, because the system is different. And that's what Spain was doing and what it must continue to do.

Fines for Apple and Meta “Digital giants have incentives to comply with EU rules”

Should Spain extend the life of its nuclear power plants?

My personal opinion is irrelevant. I think we must be very aware that, obviously, the system must be built with full guarantees for the ability to have electricity and its efficient use. We must consider whether maintenance is necessary, whether maintenance entails investments, and who will cover them. I was surprised by the ease with which the decisions made regarding state aid for the maintenance of two nuclear plants in Belgium, which is what has been resolved in recent months, are somewhat strangely assessed. Two nuclear reactors whose useful life extension has only been possible with public funding from the Belgian government, equivalent to €32 billion, given that in this useful life extension there are many aspects linked to the risk, to the financial cost of the operation, which the plant's manager was not willing to assume without very significant implicit support from the Belgian government.

But in Spain...

In the case of Spain, the question is: what is being proposed? Extending the useful life or making the consumer pay what? 20, 30, 40 billion? We have to be careful how we approach things. It's like an old car in perfect condition, which can continue to operate for a long time or may require, because it springs surprises, investments that at a given moment are greater than we thought reasonable for its production capacity. Extending the life of a nuclear power plant is something that the owner of that plant proposes if he considers it profitable, that there is demand, and that he can cover it. And obviously, under safe conditions.