Debate: Type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to their emissions and battery durability
Date: WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2023
Speaker: Alexandr Vondra
Country: Ireland
Language: EN

No matter which politician you ask, they will all claim to be committed to a sustainable automotive industry. However, the crucial difference is whether the rules being pushed for Euro 7 are realistic. I support the Commission’s goal of producing cleaner cars and improving the quality of the air. But we must also act with due care and caution, not least because the sector accounts for more than 9 % of GDP, 26 % of manufacturing and 24 % of exports in the country I know best.  The Commission’s original proposal would have a hugely negative impact on consumers and car manufacturers – an impact which is disproportionate to its positive environmental effects. Firstly, it would divert resources from decarbonisation by requiring substantial investment in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine technology. Secondly, there are serious questions over the feasibility of the Commission-recommended standards, especially in view of short lead times. Thirdly, the cost implications are a major cause of concern, as they would have exceeded the estimates in the proposal’s impact assessment. This in turn would have led to higher costs for consumers that are already grappling with the challenges of rising costs of living. It was therefore imperative to rework the Commission text and establish a better balance between the environmental objectives and the concerns of consumers and manufacturers. After four months of negotiations, I believe that the mandate adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety largely achieves that. First, testing parameters are not a revolution as the Commission proposed, but an evolution from the Euro 6 parameters, which ensures that the new emission standards remain economically and technologically feasible. Secondly, under these testing conditions, the report is able to correspond with the levels proposed by the Commission for pollutant emissions for passenger cars, and proposes additional three categories for light commercial vehicles based on their weight. Thirdly, the adopted text also proposes tougher limits for exhaust emissions from the buses and heavy-duty vehicles, including levels set for the real driving emissions. Forced to avoid legal and investor uncertainties, specific implementation timeframes have been included that, in turn, are linked to the entry into force of all relevant secondary legislation. Once all the relevant secondary legislation is complete, new types of fully duty vehicles would have 24 months, and new types of heavy-duty vehicles 48 months, to comply. All existing types of the light-duty vehicles will have 36 months, and heavy-duty vehicles 60 months, to ensure compliance. The sixth report also better aligns EU methodologies and limits for brake particle emission and tyre abrasion rates with UNECE standards, as well as asking for more ambitious yet achievable goals for electric vehicles’ battery-durability standards. Generally, I believe the committee report represents our best opportunity at securing an interinstitutional agreement ahead of the elections. Why? Because the Council has raised many comparable concerns over the cost, timing and technical feasibility. For that reason, we can already see the outline of possible landing space for the compromise between the co-legislators. It is therefore essential that Plenary endorse my committee report.