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

The Commission’s proposal relied on solid evidence and rigorous assessments, and we made our proposal to respect three main principles, which I trust we can all agree with. One is improving air quality to lower the number of premature deaths in the EU – 70 000 people in Europe die prematurely every year due to air pollution from cars, vans, buses and trucks. Secondly, putting clean vehicles on the market at affordable prices for our citizens, so that citizens across the EU can actually afford new vehicles and not only second-hand or third-hand vehicles, which often pollute more, as we all know. And thirdly, preserving the competitiveness of our automotive industry, and when I speak about automotive industry, I don’t only mean large manufacturers, I mean the entire ecosystem, including component manufacturers and aftermarket services. And we also need to take into account the broader transformation of the automotive industry. In fact, this Parliament has established earlier this year a very clear pathway to zero-emission vehicles. Back in November 2022, the Commission’s proposal aimed to strike the right balance between these challenging objectives. We proposed emission limits, achievable with cost-effective solutions, and technology which is already available. We proposed future-proof elements that will remain valid for electric vehicles, brakes, tyres, battery durability. We proposed using available digital technologies like sensors to improve compliance over the lifetime of a vehicle. I recognise and welcome that the overall architecture and some key blocks of our proposal can be found in the Parliament’s position so far. First, the need to tackle exhaust emissions both from light duty- and from heavy duty vehicles. Second, the need to start regulating non-exhaust emissions and to do so based on the work carried out at UN level. Global harmonisation of the rules is the best way forward and Euro 7 will have a pivotal role here. And third, the need for rules on battery durability, lifetime requirements and on-board monitoring to ensure high performance over the life of a vehicle. Having said this, there are of course areas where the Parliament’s position diverges from the Commission’s. And here timing is important, both from an environmental and an economic perspective. With ENVI’s report Euro 7 requirements will apply about three years later than in the Commission proposal. This would surely give vehicle manufacturers more lead time to adapt to changes. However, it would also give less time to recoup their investment before moving to 100% zero-emission vehicles. Postponing the application would also reduce environmental and health benefits. Another challenging aspect is the proposed approach to secondary legislation. We are fully committed to be as fast as possible, but the Parliament’s proposal would multiply the number of secondary acts, sometimes even overlapping between delegated and implementing acts. And setting strict deadlines of only 12 months could also impede our consultation process and create legal risks. I also have some questions, or at least doubts, concerning some of the proposed changes regarding brake emissions for hybrid electric vehicles or battery durability requirements. And finally, I am aware, of course, that the Council has taken a different position, notably regarding emission limits, but I won’t comment any further here today, as this will be discussed in the trilogues. So to conclude, I want to stress again how encouraging it is to see this House’s commitment on this file. It is needed so that we can collectively provide regulatory certainty to companies and protection to our citizens, in particular our most vulnerable ones. So in this spirit, I look forward to the debate today and to the upcoming trilogue negotiations.