REPORT     ***I
PDF 201kWORD 154k
27 June 2006
PE 371.910v02-00 A6-0232/2006

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

(COM(2005)0634 – C6-0008/2006 – 2005/0283(COD))

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Rapporteur: Dan Jørgensen

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 OPINIONOF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

(COM(2005)0634 – C6-0008/2006 – 2005/0283(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0634)(1),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0008/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0232/2006),

1.  Rejects the Commission proposal;

2.  Asks the Council not to adopt a common position and calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal and to come forward with a proposal on environmentally ambitious, technology driving and stringent EURO VI standards as soon as possible;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

(1)

Not yet published in OJ.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Context of proposal

The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's proposals and fully supports its intent to bring about the necessary improvements in air quality, the environment and health by means, inter alia, of public investment in the market for cleaner vehicles.

The directive should be viewed in a broader context, particularly in the light of the forthcoming EURO VI standards which, in the same way as this report, are aimed at vehicles over 3.5 tons and light duty vehicles. The introduction of stricter standards applicable to all new vehicles is absolutely essential for a long-term improvement in the environment and health and, as such, the ultimate objective of our work.

2. Rejection of Commission proposal

The opinion of the rapporteur is that the Commission proposal has been put forward too late, and would therefore not, in its current form, have the needed beneficial impact on environment and human health. As a consequence the rapporteur proposed amending the directive on key emission standards bringing it in line with the updated prospects of technical development and needed environmental improvements. For these necessary changes, which would have meant introducing a revised EEV standard, it was not possible, however, to find a majority in the committee responsible. In light of this the rapporteur suggests to reject the Commission proposal and to ask the Commission to focus its effort on bringing forward a EURO VI proposal containing environmentally ambitious and technology driving emission standards binding for all heavy road transport vehicles. This solution is supported by a large majority of the committee responsible.

3. Shortcomings of proposal - standards

As regards the impact on health and the environment, the most important values in the EEV standard are the values applicable to NOx and particulates. The EURO V standard, already adopted and applicable to heavy duty vehicles over 3.5 tons, which enters into force in 2008/2009, is extremely close to the EEV standard in the Commission's proposal on precisely these points. Even taking an optimistic view of the process of considering and adopting this proposal, the environmental gain will be limited as the best-case scenario is that the directive will be in effect for approximately one year before EURO V becomes applicable to all new vehicles.

As regards innovation and driving force on the market, car manufacturers, among others, claim that there are already sufficient incentives in EURO V to manufacture vehicles which meet these standards.

Given that this directive would cover only a limited sector of the market, it is crucial that it would support the development of vehicles which bring about considerable environmental improvements.

It should therefore be a long-term ambition to prepare for EURO VI and therefore lay down stricter standards, particularly in regard to NOx and particulates.

4. Long-term investment

The main argument against raising the level of ambition in this directive is the financial cost associated with a greater proportion of clean vehicles. This is a short-term appreciation, however.

The future EURO VI standards, which will apply to all new vehicles, will - if we do not invest massively in this area at the right time - result in extremely serious additional costs for both public and private purchasers.

The intention behind the proposal is to create a bigger overall European market for clean vehicles now and thus achieve potential economies of scale by ensuring that industry has a sufficiently large market to justify the necessary investment.

In keeping with the original proposal's intention to have public investment play a decisive role as a driving force on the market, the rapporteur proposes to increase the proportion of public procurement of clean vehicles to 35% and to extend the directive to cover light-duty vehicles as well.

A higher level of ambition and a genuine commitment to industry is therefore crucial if we are to secure the necessary investment, achieve economies of scale and thereby bring the long-term costs down.

5. Revision and updating in line with technological development

The rapporteur takes the view that the requirements under the directive should be updated on an ongoing basis in line with technological development. In order to adapt swiftly to new opportunities and requirements, the rapporteur supports the intention behind the proposal to allow adaptation to take place without further political consideration but, at the same time, proposes greater control over the revision process by expressly including those elements which promise to be most decisive in future. Primarily, the scope of the directive should be extended to cover passenger cars, to include CO2 values and energy efficiency in the requirements and to ensure that the standards are raised in line with technological advances.

In addition, the directive introduces a requirement focussing more on the development of methods of measuring the number of particles (as opposed to the present mass) and future inclusion of these values in the directive. Despite their low weight, fine particulates constitute a very serious health risk, which calls for particular measures to address these.

6. Funding

It is the rapporteur's clear view that both Community and national sources of finance should be brought into play so that the further cost of investment does not affect the quality of public transport. Moreover, the rapporteur considers it natural if Member States' funding allocations take account of increases in expenditure at certain regional or local political and administrative levels in order to comply with the directive.

It would, however, be contrary to the subsidiarity principle to prescribe exact funding models, in the same way that the proposal does not prescribe models for meeting the main requirements of the directive in view of the diverse forms of organisation at national level.


OPINIONOF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY (31.5.2006)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

(COM(2005)0634 – C6-0008/2006 – 2005/0283(COD))

Draftswoman: María del Pilar Ayuso González

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

In spite of a multitude of efforts to reduce emissions of pollutants harmful to the environment and human health, many European cities still cope with poor air quality. The road transport sector, by using 26% of total energy consumption and by contributing 24% of total CO2 emissions, is a key-sector in curbing pollutant emissions and energy consumption. There is a considerable potential for reducing the emissions of vehicles. However, at the moment these technologies are too expensive.

In this proposal, the Commission suggests to build up a market for less polluting and more energy efficient vehicles by obliging public bodies to allocate at least 25% of their annual procurements of heavy duty vehicles to "clean vehicles" (i.a. vehicles meeting the Enhanced Environmentally friendly Vehicle (EEV) performance standard). This means that yearly at least around 4.000 "clean" buses and 8.000 "clean" lorries would be bought or leased.

Your draftswoman welcomes the Commission's proposal. The European vehicle industry is a mass production industry and governments can play a useful role as "launching customers", thereby creating markets of sufficient size with the necessary economies of scale. Also, this measure might raise the profile and visibility of clean vehicles among companies and the general public. European action is needed because actions on national level would risk fragmentation of the internal market and could lead to the development of different mini-series of vehicles according to national requirements.

Your draftswoman believes that the chosen target of 25% is a good and workable compromise between air quality improvement and market development on one side and affordable extra investment cost and mass market availability on the other side. Also the choice of the Commission to target the proposal initially towards the market of heavy duty vehicles (which includes buses and most utility vehicles, such as waste collections lorries), where the share of public procurement is relatively high (around one third) is in the eyes of your draftswoman a sensible choice. Finally, your draftswoman supports the choice made in the proposal for a technology-neutral, performance based approach. This approach encourages innovation and market-based solutions and secures the necessary flexibility for industry to adjust to technical and economic progress. However, your draftswoman regrets the fact that no "clean" standard is introduced for energy efficiency.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission  Amendments by Parliament

Amendment 1

Recital 4 a (new)

 

(4a) Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport1 sets two national indicative targets, 2% in 2005 and 5,75% in 2010, for biofuels to be placed on the market.

________________

 

1 OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42.

Justification

A reference should be made to the legislative acts already promoting the use of clean fuels in transport.

Amendment 2

Recital 8

(8) Performance standards should be used for the promotion of clean vehicles. A standard for Enhanced Environmentally friendly Vehicles (EEV) has been defined in Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles for vehicles above 3.5 t weight. At present, this standard appears to be the most appropriate to be used for the definition of a clean vehicle in this Directive. However the possibility of amending this definition to take into account the latest technical progress should be provided for.

(8) Performance standards should be used for the promotion of clean vehicles. A standard for Enhanced Environmentally friendly Vehicles (EEV) has been defined in Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles for vehicles above 3.5 t weight. At present, this standard appears to be the most appropriate to be used for the definition of a clean vehicle in this Directive. However the possibility of amending this definition to take into account the latest technical progress and incorporate energy efficiency standards should be provided for.

Justification

In the existing definition of Enhanced Environmentally friendly Vehicles (EEV) no provision is made for energy efficiency. However, one of the objectives of this Directive is to reduce overall energy consumption by road transport vehicles. Therefore, a possible amending of the EEV definition should also try to incorporate energy efficiency standards in the definition.

Amendment 3

Recital 9

(9) Vehicles with low fuel consumption or using alternative fuels, including biofuels, natural gas, LPG or hydrogen, and different technologies, including electrical or combustion/electrical hybrid systems, can contribute to a reduction of emissions and pollution.

(9) Vehicles with low fuel consumption or using alternative fuels, including biofuels, natural gas, LPG or hydrogen, and different technologies, including electrical or combustion/electrical hybrid systems, can contribute to a reduction of emissions and pollution and to the improvement of air quality in urban areas.

Justification

No reference is made in the Directive to the air quality in urban areas, a problem that clean transport can help to improve.

Amendment 4

Recital 9 a (new)

 

(9a) Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels1 (the Fuel Quality Directive), by establishing precise specifications for petrol and diesel, unintentionally places constraints on the increased use of biofuels and should therefore be reviewed.

__________________________

 

1 OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

Justification

The Fuel Quality Directive establishes specifications for petrol and diesel, for environmental and health reasons, e.g. limits on the content of ethanol, ether and other oxygenates in petrol. It also limits the vapour pressure of petrol. Standard EN590 sets further limits for technical reasons, and states that diesel must contain no more than 5% biodiesel by volume. These quantitative limits put constraints on the increased use of biofuels and should be reviewed.

Amendment 5

Recital 10

(10) Mandatory procurement of clean vehicles should contribute to reduce pollution and energy consumption and favour a faster market introduction of these vehicle technologies.

(10) Mandatory procurement of clean vehicles should contribute to reduce pollution and energy consumption and favour a faster market introduction of these vehicle technologies. To ensure security of energy supply and a better performance in environmental terms, it would be desirable for Member States to focus on the public procurement of clean vehicles using alternative fuels and technologies, in particular biofuels, hydrogen and electrical or combustion/electrical hybrid systems.

Justification

Even if the Directive is technology neutral, it is important for Member States to focus on the promotion of alternative fuels and technologies.

Amendment 6

Recital 10 a (new)

 

(10a) Simultaneously, the development of new vehicle technologies and alternative fuels should be supported by Community and national R&D instruments and the use of Structural Funds.

Justification

Market creation by strengthening demand needs to be accompanied by measures to encourage research, technological innovation and market introduction. This requires public funding, both at EU as at national level. The recent focus of the Structural Funds towards innovation could be used more in this respect.

Amendment 7

Article 4, paragraph 1

1. The definition of a clean vehicle as set out in Article 2(b) may be adapted to technical progress in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 6(2).

1. The definition of a clean vehicle as set out in Article 2(b) may be adapted to technical progress in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2).

Justification

Correction of technical mistake.

Amendment 8

Article 4, paragraph 2 a (new)

 

2a. The Commission shall ensure that relevant information concerning any measures envisaged is made available to interested parties in good time.

Justification

In order to make use of the knowledge and experience that exist within industry and NGOs, the Commission and the committee should seek a permanent dialogue, dissemination of information and continuous consultation with the interested parties.

Amendment 9

Article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2

By no later than three years from the date referred to in Article 7(1), the Commission shall prepare a report on the application of this Directive and on the actions taken by individual Member States aiming at the procurement of clean vehicles below 3,5 t weight. The report shall assess the effects of this Directive, the reporting by Member States and the need for further action, and make proposals as appropriate, in particular on an extension of the clean vehicle procurement obligation to passenger cars and light duty vehicles below 3.5 t weight.

By no later than two years from the date referred to in Article 7(1), the Commission shall prepare a report on the application of this Directive and on the actions taken by individual Member States aiming at the procurement of clean vehicles below 3,5 t weight. The report shall assess the effects of this Directive, the reporting by Member States and the need for further action, and make proposals as appropriate, in particular on an extension of the clean vehicle procurement obligation to passenger cars and light duty vehicles below 3.5 t weight.

Justification

For the car industry, with it's long term investment and activities planning, better predictability on future regulations is of the greatest importance. The industry needs time in order to make well-planned and cost-effective investments in development and in manufacturing. That was also one of the main recommendations of the CARS21 High Level Group. Therefore, the Commission needs as soon as possible to assess the need for further action.

PROCEDURE

Title

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

References

COM(2005)0634 – C6-0008/2006 – 2005/0283(COD)

Committee responsible

ENVI

Opinion by
  Date announced in plenary

ITRE
16.2.2006

Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary

 

Drafts(wo)man
  Date appointed

María del Pilar Ayuso González
21.2.2006

Previous drafts(wo)man

 

Discussed in committee

3.5.2006

30.5.2006

 

 

 

Date adopted

30.5.2006

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

46

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Jan Březina, Philippe Busquin, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Vincenzo Lavarra, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Umberto Pirilli, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

María del Pilar Ayuso González, Ivo Belet, Edit Herczog, Toine Manders, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Vittorio Prodi, John Purvis

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Maria Badia I Cutchet, Giovanni Berlinguer, Hiltrud Breyer, Marco Cappato

Comments (available in one language only)

 


PROCEDURE

Title

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

References

COM(2005)0634 – C6-0008/2005 – 2005/0283(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

21.12.2006

Committee responsible
  Date announced in plenary

ENVI
16.2.2006

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)
  Date announced in plenary

TRAN

16.2.2006

ITRE
16.2.2006

 

 

 

Not delivering opinion(s)
  Date of decision

TRAN

20.6.2006

 

 

 

 

Enhanced cooperation
  Date announced in plenary

 

 

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)
  Date appointed

Dan Jørgensen
7.2.2006

 

Previous rapporteur(s)

 

 

Simplified procedure – date of decision

 

Legal basis disputed
  Date of JURI opinion

 

 

 

Financial endowment amended
  Date of BUDG opinion

 

 

 

European Economic and Social Committee consulted – date of decision in plenary

 

Committee of the Regions consulted – date of decision in plenary

 

Discussed in committee

4.5.2006

 

 

 

 

Date adopted

21.6.2006

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

39

4

1

Members present for the final vote

Adamos Adamou, Johannes Blokland, Frieda Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Edite Estrela, Anne Ferreira, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Dan Jørgensen, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Urszula Krupa, Aldis Kušķis, Peter Liese, Marios Matsakis, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Kathy Sinnott, Bogusław Sonik, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Anders Wijkman

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Margrete Auken, María del Pilar Ayuso González, Bairbre de Brún, Christofer Fjellner, Genowefa Grabowska, Ambroise Guellec, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Miroslav Mikolášik, Renate Sommer, Andres Tarand

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Sepp Kusstatscher

Date tabled

29.6.2006

Comments (available in one language only)

...

Last updated: 14 September 2006Legal notice