In a media release our member eFuel Alliance criticizes the a specific outcome of the latest trilogue discussions between the Commission, Parliament and Council. The EU today agreed on new CO2 fleet targets for passenger cars and light-duty vehicles. In doing so, they are focusing solely on electric vehicles and not giving synthetic sustainable fuels for passenger cars a chance. The eFuel Alliance disapproves of this approach.
Although the outcome still contains Recital 9a, which recommends permitting CO2-neutral fuels for new cars with internal combustion engines even after 2035, this is only a recommendation to the Commission. It is legally non-binding. In the view of the eFuel Alliance, this proposal does not go far enough.
Ralf Diemer, Managing Director of the eFuel Alliance, expressed his disappointment in the decision, saying: “We need a fleet regulation that makes openness to all technologies binding for the purpose of rapid defossilisation. In contrast, the outcome of the trilogue is one-sided and ignores options that are just as climate-friendly.” In addition, he criticised the fact that the ban on combustion engines is not in line with the eFuel quotas for the fuel market that the Parliament and the Council have decided on, saying: “It is inconsistent to require the use of eFuels in road traffic and then to outlaw their long-term use in combustion vehicles in the next step. This unsettles industry as well as consumers and discourages urgently needed investments.
The eFuel Alliance sees the current decision in the trilogue as a misguided signal that is already generating considerable uncertainty in the automotive and fuel industry. Instead of thwarting future- proof technologies, a way must be found to continue to allow climate-neutral combustion vehicles. Ralf Diemer also questions the importance of competition, saying: “Why does a climate-neutral combustion engine have to be banned? If electric cars truly are the best solution for everyone, they will prevail in a fair competition. If not, customers should be offered alternatives. Thus, the EU urgently needs to define a pathway for making road transport fit for the future in a way that is without technological bias.”