Newsfeed Planner Pipeline People Institutions Community

16 Oct 2023

Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 on CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles

General approach

13843/23

the Presidency noted that this was part of the Fit for 55 package and that it was crucial to improve the EU's competitiveness in industry and the health of citizens;
the initiative would improve air quality, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets set out in the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR);
the EU could lead the way in innovation in the heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) sector;
the Presidency noted that the Commission was proposing to:
- increase the ambition for 2030 and set CO2 reduction targets for 2035 and 2040 in line with the EU's climate objectives;
- extend the Regulation to other categories of vehicles, notably buses;
there had been differences between delegations, notably on the level of ambition, the scope and some flexibilities requested by certain Member States;
- the Presidency noted that Italy wanted to make some comments on this;
the compromise text being presented was a good balance between maintaining the previous text whilst including certain additions requested by many delegations, such as bringing forward the date of review of the Regulation from 2028 to 2027;
the Presidency noted some of the provisions included in the compromise text:
- the Commission's proposed general targets had been maintained;
- the 100% zero-emission target for 2030 for urban buses had also been maintained;
- - however, inter-urban buses were exempt from this;
  - the review clause had been reenforced with specific provisions, such as taking account of national investments and possible constraints due to specific circumstances;
  - the limited share exemption had been deleted;
- the target level for semi-trailers had been lowered;
- the threshold of HDV definition had been lowered, which would still allow hydrogen-fuelled vehicles to be counted as zero-emission vehicles (ZEV);
- national specificities, including on the issue of extra-heavy vehicles, had been taken into account;
- on public procurement procedures for zero-emission urban buses, the provisions on the assessment criteria for security of supply had been clarified, notably to ensure legal soundness;
it was important to reach an agreement today in order to begin negotiations with Parliament and bring the file to a close before the European elections;
- the Presidency urged members not to pass up on this opportunity;
the Presidency noted a number of pending issues, such as Italy's.

Wopke Hoekstra, Commissioner for Climate Action

he noted that the file needed to be adopted before the European elections;
he noted that almost all trucks still ran on internal combustion engines (ICE), most of these running on imported diesel;
- emissions from these were still rising, mainly due to increased demand for road freight traffic;
he stressed that the proposal would reduce CO2 emissions from HDVs in a cost-effective manner;
at the same time, it would provide economic benefits to transport operators and users, most of which were small-to-medium-sized-enterprises (SME), as a result of lower energy expenditures;
the proposal would send a strong long-term signal to the market and allow European manufacturers to secure their leadership in technology and innovation;
the necessary incentives for the transition would be secured with this Regulation;
- he noted that investments would also be channelled into recharging and refuelling infrastructure and other enabling conditions, such as upskilling and reskilling of workers;
he noted that operators were worried that supply of ZEVs would not be able to meet demand, and warned that if the EU did not act then other major players who were investing heavily into this technology would fill these gaps;
the revised standards would contribute to lower energy dependence on imported fossil fuels, which was a priority given the current geopolitical state of affairs;
the file would contribute to reducing air pollution and safeguarding health;
- cities were already moving towards carbon neutrality and the EU needed to ensure that the necessary vehicles were on the market;
on the target levels, which were the main element of this proposal, he noted some diverging views among MS;
- the Commission believed that its proposal therefore struck a good middle ground and balance, and thanked the Presidency for keeping this target level unchanged;
- on the target for urban buses, the Commission conceded that it was ambitious but stood by its proposal as it was realistic;
- - this would bring undeniable cost benefits for local authorities in terms of air pollution and financial savings;
the Commission restated its commitment to technology neutrality given that technological progress should be incentivised to ensure a cost-effective transition towards zero-emission mobility;
- the text included a review clause "which can and will be used in this context" as with the Regulation on light-duty vehicles (LDV);
- the Commission had prepared an act examining the type-approval of vehicles running exclusively on carbon-neutral fuels (e-fuels), which was currently being discussed.

France noted that guiding investment towards zero-emissions technology was key;
France supported the Presidency's ambition on targets and did not want to weaken the general approach in any way;
- France opposed the Carbon Correction Factor (CCF) taking specific account of alternative fuels in the Regulation if it could lead to a significant reduction in ambition;
- - though alternative fuels may be encouraged, the shift to other modes was more important, so sending the wrong signal should be avoided;
France called for the postponement of the urban buses target to 2035 as more time was needed for operators to move towards full electrification;
- enough supply was also needed to support this transition and to safeguard technological sovereignty;
- France called for the amendment of this in the text in order to secure its support for it.

Germany noted the positive effects of this proposal on employment and the technological feasibility;
Germany thanked the Presidency for adding some of its amendments to this text, including safeguarding technological neutrality;
Germany supported the compromise as a whole, but noted a couple of concerns:
- the use of e-fuels in urban transport could be considered in the review article;
- Germany rejected the CCF as part of a review as it would reduce ambition and undermine planning certainty for industry for the future, while increasing bureaucracy;
- - it would also increase the demand for biofuels, which should be avoided in a time with increased droughts and flooding putting additional pressure on agriculture. Burden on farmers should be avoided.

Poland highlighted four points in order for it to agree to the general approach:
- first, more realistic targets and an extended timeline were needed given that the development of enabling conditions for the decarbonisation of HDVs would require significant investments and would need time for implementation;
- - Poland therefore supported the Italian proposal for a CCF to better reflect low-carbon fuels;
- second, on connectivity and competitiveness of transport companies, road transport to third countries carried high mileage and there was little infrastructure and regulatory reliability;
- - a review clause was needed to reflect the use of vehicles outside the EU;
- third, on semi-trailers, the reduction of the target to 7.5% was a step in the right direction, but Poland preferred a 5% target with a flexible approach;
- fourth, on the 100% reduction by 2030 target for urban buses, this could be difficult for poorer municipalities;
- - France's proposal to postpone the targets was welcome, with a more flexible approach to accommodate for variations in population density and other factors.

Denmark had two main points to make:
- first, more ambitious targets were needed to send a strong signal to the market of a timely transition;
- - targets should be increased across the board;
  - a 100% reduction in 2040 for new HDVs was possible and, according to the Commission, would provide positive economic benefits over the vehicles' lifetimes;
  - the target for urban buses by 2030 should be maintained, though an earlier phase-out date was preferable;
- second, Denmark strongly opposed the CCF since the use of e-fuels "posed a serious risk of introducing loopholes" as they required an ICE;
- - such fuels were already regulated in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED);
Denmark also opposed increasing the threshold for CO2 emissions in the definition of ZEVs given that it may increase CO2 levels;
- also, alternative technologies such as electric and hydrogen already existed;
- Denmark suggested lowering the threshold to 1g CO2 per tonne km;
addressing Poland's comments on infrastructure restraints in third countries, Denmark was open to reflect this in the review clause.

Ireland fully supported the Presidency's ambition to incentivise the transition for the HDV sector;
Ireland expressed doubts over the CCF as it was already covered by other legislation;
on urban buses, Ireland agreed for high standards.

Czechia found the compromise text too ambitious and difficult to implement;
- the competitiveness of the EU could be impeded;
the proposed 2030 headline emissions target needed to be lowered to 35% given that electric HDVs were currently in early stages of development and recharging infrastructure remained limited;
- while supporting the modal shift to rail, a complete reversal of the current trend could not be achieved by 2030;
- a massive increase in electric and hydrogen HDVs would required an extensive network of charging infrastructure which would be difficult to achieve in many regions;
- - this could also hamper availability of transport services and drive up costs of goods;
Czechia welcomed changing the deadline for a review to 2027;
- the Commission should evaluate the feasibility of such a transition;
on urban buses, this was a priority for Czechia;
- the initial high purchasing price of electric buses should be taken into account, as well as the time needed for a gradual shift;
- the effects of this shift on public transport efficiency and accessibility should be accounted for, especially in peripheral and rural areas;
- therefore, the deadline should be postponed to 2035, which was not yet reflected in the text;
Czechia regretted that a CCF had not been included in the text, and called for its inclusion in order to allow for the role of e-fuels in the transition.

whilst welcoming the compromise, Latvia raised the concerns of the capacities of manufacturers to achieve the transition;
on urban buses, Latvia empathised with the financial constraints of local municipalities and would be open to a new Presidency compromise on this;
Latvia supported Poland's proposal on Article 15 (review clause);
Latvia overall supported the general approach.

this was a highly sensitive file for Slovakia's national parliament which had hindered its possibility of being more flexible during negotiations;
Slovakia welcomed the earlier date for the review clause;
Slovakia highlighted several further problems in the text:
- technological neutrality had not been taken into account;
- a tailpipe approach would not consider upstream emissions;
- the lack of a CCF, which would help operators operating in third countries with less infrastructure;
- - if a CCF was not introduced, then the targets would need reducing as they were ambitious;
- the 2030 target for urban buses, which should be pushed back to 2035 as, otherwise, a large burden would be placed on municipalities;
- - this would allow more flexibility to smaller municipalities whilst keeping high ambition;
  - it would avoid higher charges eventually being passed onto passengers;
Slovakia could not support the compromise proposal.

Italy expressed its "profound regret" at the way in which these negotiations had taken place on such an important file;
- the compromise was not well-balanced;
Italy recalled its proposal to introduce the CCF, which would add flexibility to mitigate the social and economic impacts and enable the sector to have a fair transition without undermining market penetration of new technologies;
- Italy did not understand comments on this amounting to a reduction in ambition;
- Italy noted that the necessary enabling conditions were not in place;
Italy noted the lack of coherence from some delegations, noting in particular:
- the reduction in targets for semi-trailers;
- the new definition of combinations of extra-heavy vehicles, which was not founded in current legislation;
- the introduction of 2 specific categories of vehicles without any impact assessment;
- the change of definition of ZEVs from 5g CO2/tonne km to 3g CO2/tonne km which would still consider some diesel-powered vehicles as zero-emission;
Italy was open to finding solutions to these concerns and thus suggested a compromise: allowing the CCF for just the transition period until 2036;
- more time was needed to work on this compromise.

Belgium would have liked a 100% target for 2040 and therefore could not accept any compromise that would further weaken ambition, such as a CCF;
Belgium fully supported the current text as was.

the text represented an improvement in many respects, such as:
- the reduced semi-trailer targets;
- the new date for the review clause;
- the exemption of inter-urban buses from the 2030 target;
- the continued exemption of vocational vehicles from the scope;
however, some issues remained as pending:
- the urban buses target was too difficult and needed pushing to 2035, which was "vital";
- on targets, Hungary could accept a reduction target of maximum 40% by 2030, 60% by 2035 and 90% by 2040;
- Hungary supported the CCF in the spirit of technological neutrality;
- extra-EU aspects needed to be taken into consideration and included in the review.

the general approach was a very good starting point;
Romania welcomed the ambitions of the 2030 target for urban buses, but raised serious concern for the affordability of zero-emission buses for municipalities, especially smaller ones;
- extending to 2035 was necessary and Romania's support for the compromise depended on it;
Romania underlined the need for recharging infrastructure, and hoped to see this in the Commission review.

Sweden welcomed the definition of urban buses, the inclusion of a sub-group for extra-heavy combinations, and a strengthened review clause at an earlier date;
on the CCF, Sweden noted that this could "seriously delay the efforts to decarbonise the HDV sector", calling for a strong signal to be sent to stakeholders and investors that the future of the sector lay in electric and other forms of zero-emissions;
- e-fuels and biofuels would play a role in making transport more sustainable, but should be addressed in Regulation already in place, such as RED and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD);
Sweden strongly supported the Commission's tailpipe approach.

Cyprus welcomed the well-balanced text, including efforts to compromise on Article 15 (review clause), public procurement for urban buses, and others;
however, Cyprus raised concern over the 2030 target for urban buses, which would be radical and expensive for smaller municipalities;
- an interim target of 80% could help the sector to reach a 100% reduction by 2035;
Cyprus expressed understanding for the concerns of other MS over specific national geographical constraints.

this Regulation could help MS achieve the goals of ESR:
attention was needed on charging infrastructure, so Slovenia welcomed the earlier date for the review;
in terms of air quality, especially in urban areas, Slovenia welcomed the 2030 target for urban buses;
- Slovenia also welcomed the public procurement framework, pointing out that contracting authorities needed a simplified tendering procedure;
Slovenia supported the compromise.

Malta supported the compromise and urged the Presidency to maintain its high ambition in order to send a strong message;
- this would provide certainty to industry to invest in this sector and increase production of HDVs;
- - this would also reduce charges;
Malta supported the compromise.

in the review clause, Lithuania called for a provision to take into account investments in bio-methane made by authorities at the time of the review;
on the urban buses target, Lithuania could support the public procurement provision as well as the 100% target by 2030;
Lithuania supported the extended scope, lowering of the CO2 emissions threshold for ZEVs, the target for semi-trailers and the derogation for extra-heavy vehicles;
Lithuania supported the compromise.

despite disputes on details, Finland recognised this landmark piece of legislation;
a technology neutral approach was needed;
Finland supported the 90% target for 2040 as it left room for different technologies in the longer term;
Finland welcomed the inclusion of a category for extra-heavy combination;
- Finland called on the Commission to swiftly prepare legislation specifying the calculation methods for such vehicles;
Finland supported the compromise.

Bulgaria supported the compromise;
Bulgaria echoed calls for the consideration of third-country operations in the review;
Bulgaria believed competitiveness was being upheld, which was important given the developments in batteries and electrification of vehicles in the US and China;
- the EU could become a "sort of third country of transport innovation" if this was not tackled;
Bulgaria supported the urban buses target;
Bulgaria recalled its suggestion for green transport corridors, including new highways.

Austria agreed with Bulgaria's comments on competitiveness;
- there was a trend towards zero-emission mobility, which called for strong action to ensure that the EU be a global leader in this;
- manufacturers needed clear signals and support;
on the CCF, Austria rejected its inclusion as it would water down ambition;
- e-fuels would be needed in sectors that were harder to decarbonise, such as aviation, not in road transport;
- the majority of manufacturers, including Volvo and Daimler, had spoken out against the CCF;
Austria opposed the special treatment for extra-heavy combination trucks.

the Netherlands supported higher targets;
- however, in the spirit of compromise, the current standards were welcome;
any changes to the current text would have to be reviewed by the Netherlands.

in principle, strong standards and the scope extension to new categories were welcome, but the compromise text needed some adjustments before Estonia's vote could be secured:
- the fair treatment of biofuels in the HDV sector, especially in urban buses, was needed given the "bigger picture" of energy security, connectivity and competitiveness, cost effectiveness, climate contribution and local circumstances;
- - biofuels, such as bio-methane with low or negative emissions, could be viable alternatives;
- banning new urban buses from 2030 would jeopardise investments already made in other technologies and would adversely affect the shift to lower emissions;
- - Estonia agreed with the extension of this to 2035, without which Estonia would not support the general approach.

Greece noted that air quality was important and pointed to the Ambient Air Quality Directive;
Greece supported the direction of the Presidency, but called for the consideration of concerns already raised by other MS, whilst not compromising the climate ambitions of the text;
enabling conditions were needed to incentivise the market uptake of ZEVs, including charging infrastructure, vehicles prices and the limited range of vehicles;
- Greece thus supported France's proposal on urban buses and that of Poland on infrastructure constraints in third countries;
- Greece could also support Italy's proposal on a CCF if a suitable compromise could be found.

Portugal supported provisions such as:
- on scope, exempting vocational vehicles;
- on global targets, including the 90% one for 2040;
Portugal supported the urban buses target and appreciated the exemption for inter-urban buses;
the new Emissions Trading System (ETS) would be a valuable tool for securing investments in this sector;
flexibility was needed for those MS that had invested in other technologies;
certainty in planning was important;
Portugal supported the compromise text.

Croatia shared concerns for the increased financial burden on the transport sector, especially in urban buses, the challenges related to higher vehicles prices and infrastructure development;
Croatia supported the general approach.

Luxembourg welcomed the swift progress made by the Presidency;
Luxembourg could support the "fragile balance" that was the compromise, but any change to upset that balance and reduce ambition would have to be compensated by higher ambition in other provisions, such as the 2030 objectives;
- the CCF would not be acceptable as it could create loopholes and double-counting.

Wopke Hoekstra, Commissioner for Climate Action

he noted "overwhelming support for the why, the what and the how" of the proposal;
lowering ambitions would not make sense;
he noted that certain concerns for the urban buses target would need to be considered.

Spain welcomed general support for the compromise, though acknowledged a series of concerns, especially over urban buses;
Spain noted that several MS had supported the introduction of a CCF, as well as the consideration of third-country operations;
- all these would need to be addressed in the 2027 review;
Spain noted decent consensus and noted that the various additional proposals would be considered that afternoon.

Second sitting to discuss the revised compromise text

the Presidency asked if any delegation had any objection to or comments on the 3 changes made to the compromise text:
- pushing the deadline for the 100% target for urban buses back to 2035;
- also on urban buses, a new intermediate 90% target for 2030;
- the one on the review clause.

France welcomed the new urban buses deadline, but rejected the intermediate 2030 target as this had never been properly discussed and was "a little too high for us";
- not all local and regional authorities (LRA) were capable of the same investment into the necessary technology and infrastructure;
- France called for the lowering of this intermediate target and hoped this would be understood.

Estonia agreed with France;
Estonia had no mandate to support this compromise in its current form.

Czechia supported France's call to lower the 2030 urban buses target.

Germany wished to submit a statement for the minutes.

Slovakia held the same position as France on the intermediate urban buses target.

Hungary echoed calls for a lower 2030 target for urban buses.

Cyprus echoed the same call.

Italy would have wanted more for the CCF, but appreciated the Presidency's efforts;
Italy echoed France's call on the intermediate urban buses target.

like Germany, Sweden would submit a statement for the minutes of the meeting.

Poland welcomed the provision on access of EU companies to third countries' markets, though this could be improved further;
Poland welcomed France's proposal;
the text was not enough to secure Poland's support in its current form, but Poland hoped that this would change during trilogues.

the Netherlands noted the setback in ambition in the revised compromise text and stated that it could not support France's proposal.

Austria echoed the position of the Netherlands.

Denmark echoed the position of the Netherlands;
Denmark accepted the current compromise but could not accept a further lowering of ambition.

Luxembourg echoed the position of the Netherlands.

Belgium could not support a further backtracking in the compromise text as regards ambition, particularly in the intermediate bus target.

Wopke Hoekstra, Commissioner for Climate Action

he noted that it was in everyone's interest not to water this text down further;
this revised compromise should be regarded as final;
on technological neutrality, the Commission was committed to this and was prepared to consider the role of e-fuels in the review, provided that a corresponding technological development was available.

Spain noted that there was general support for the text and its recent amendments, including:
- Article 15 on the review clause;
- on urban buses, though this required a further discussion;
- - the Presidency would look at slightly lowering the intermediate target for 2030.

Third sitting to discuss the revised compromise text

on the intermediate 2030 target for urban buses, the Presidency proposed to reduce this from 90% to 85%;
- Spain noted that no delegation objected to this.

Czechia noted that some progress had been made on urban buses, on the CCF and the review clause;
however, the text was still too ambitious and difficult to implement for Czechia;
- Czechia would abstain from the vote.

noting its Parliament's negative vote on the whole file, Slovakia would abstain from the vote.

Poland was hoping that during trilogues a text would be reached which was suitable for Poland.

the Council would now move forwards with negotiations with the European Parliament.

The simultaneous interpretation of debates provided by the EU institutions serves only to facilitate communication amongst the participants in the meeting. It does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. One Policy Place uses these translations so this text is only a guide and should not be relied on as an official account of the meeting. Only the original speech or the revised written translation of that speech is authentic.