A draft set of amendments from the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group would significantly reshape the EU’s CO₂ emission standards for cars and vans, easing compliance requirements and extending the timeline for full decarbonisation.
The proposals move the framework further away from a strict annual compliance model towards a system that places greater weight on industrial competitiveness, affordability and supply-chain considerations alongside climate targets.
At the core of the PfE draft is a shift from annual compliance checks to a five-year averaging period for manufacturers covering 2025 to 2029. In practice, this would allow carmakers to balance emissions performance over a longer horizon, reducing year-on-year pressure and softening the immediacy of the EU’s CO₂ targets.
The amendments also expand so-called pooling arrangements, allowing manufacturers to coordinate compliance over multi-year periods. At the same time, excess emissions premiums would be reduced and partly replaced with incentive-based mechanisms, moving the system further away from a purely penalty-driven approach.
A separate set of provisions introduces industrial “bonuses” that would feed directly into how emissions are calculated. Manufacturers producing at least 70 % of their vehicles within the EU would benefit from a more favourable CO₂ accounting treatment, with a similar bonus applied to companies sourcing at least 70 per cent of their batteries from EU production.
PfE says these measures are intended to reinforce Europe’s industrial base, protect jobs and reduce reliance on external suppliers, particularly in battery manufacturing. Critics are likely to argue they blur the line between climate policy and industrial support, and could dilute the overall emissions signal of the regulation.
The draft also includes a 2030 review clause on charging and hydrogen infrastructure. If deployment is found to be insufficient, the European Commission would be able to propose adjustments to the implementation timeline, adding an additional mechanism for revisiting targets.
On the social side, member states would be required to roll out reskilling and transition programmes for automotive and battery workers, including regional competence centres in areas most exposed to structural change in the car industry.
The most consequential change is in the long-term trajectory. The PfE amendments replace the current objective of a 100 % reduction in CO₂ emissions from new cars and vans by 2035 with a 75 per cent reduction target, pushing full phase-out to 2045. The pathway is explicitly framed as “technologically neutral”, allowing continued use of hybrids, synthetic fuels and other low-carbon technologies.
Taken together, the proposals would ease near-term compliance pressure while stretching out the transition to full decarbonisation, marking a clear recalibration of the EU’s vehicle emissions framework.
Milica Bokinac of E-Mobility Europe warns that proposals to introduce greater flexibility in the EU’s CO₂ rules risk slowing Europe’s transition to electric vehicles. Speaking to the Financial Times, she argues that extending deadlines or diluting targets could undermine investor confidence, prolong the use of internal combustion vehicles, and put billions of euros in planned investments at risk, while stressing that industrial support must be balanced with urgent climate objectives.
You argue that proposed amendments backed by parts of the EPP risk weakening the EU’s CO₂ standards. To what extent do you believe the current push for “flexibility” is being driven by industry lobbying rather than genuine concerns about competitiveness?
Of course, there are concerns about the future of the standard automobile industry, and I do not consider that a bad thing. However, I believe that all Members of Parliament, including those from the EPP, must focus on providing sustainable support to the auto industry. The key question is how to successfully transition to the electric vehicle industry without distorting the market, creating uncertainty, or giving more space to China.
The biggest misunderstanding is the idea of introducing longer deadlines. In my opinion, we need to maintain pressure on the industry — but combine it with a smart industrial strategy, better redistribution of funds, and a well-designed system of incentives and penalties.
You suggest that reopening the rules now could undermine investment certainty. From the perspective of manufacturers and suppliers, how significant is the risk that regulatory changes could delay or redirect EV investments in Europe?
In my mind, the answer to that question is really simple. If we create uncertainty in the market, we lose investors’ interest. By introducing this flexibility, we risk prolonging the transition, and that is not good news for investors.
The main interest of investors is profit. If they invest their money in EV manufacturing during the transition, but companies do not fully switch to electric vehicles in that period, their profit will be smaller because fewer EVs will be sold. Every company in transition will use those three additional years to continue producing internal combustion vehicles — and they will definitely use that space.
Also, adding e-fuels to this discussion is not helping. It only creates more confusion.
This could discourage stakeholders from fully committing to electric vehicle production and infrastructure. Europe stands at a pivotal moment, and it needs to be clear and consistent with its decisions.
Some policymakers argue that relaxing the timeline could help European manufacturers compete with Chinese producers. Do you see any evidence that weakening the CO₂ framework would actually strengthen Europe’s competitive position?
This statement is a bit unclear. Maybe decisions are influenced by past situations, when we were more competitive in the traditional automotive industry with internal combustion engines. Now we are not on such safe ground. China is definitely leading in economies of scale and more advanced EV production technologies.
However, we must focus on our strengths. Our value lies in manufacturing deployment, integration, grid services, and system innovation — areas where Europe has unique expertise.
We should stay in contact with Chinese manufacturers and cooperate where possible, but at the same time we must work on diversification of supply chains and be careful not to become dependent on one source.
I agree that some support must be provided to the industry. However, introducing additional flexibility — even without formally extending the deadline — creates risks. It can weaken the sense of urgency and slow down the transition in practice. That is why flexibility should not be the first option.
The debate around the amendments has become politically charged in Parliament. Do you think the current process allows for a balanced discussion between climate objectives and industrial concerns?
I think the current situation in Parliament is not very helpful, neither for the industry nor for climate goals. Political positions should not be the priority of Members — they should focus more on finding a compromise that considers both sides.
At the moment, it seems that right-wing views and strong support for the traditional industry are dominating the debate. However, I would invite them to reflect on how the automotive industry can best fit into a sustainable framework and the electric transition, without overcommitting to preserving the old model. Debates should be about shaping sustainable and competative future, not about protecting the past.
Supporters of the amendments argue they simply introduce flexibility rather than weaken the targets. From your perspective, where exactly does that flexibility begin to undermine the integrity of the CO₂ standards?
This is a very important question, and thank you for raising it. I think the main problem with introducing flexibility is the risk of delaying the transition and creating more space for internal combustion vehicles.
Every new car of that kind placed on the market prolongs the life of that industry. A traditional internal combustion vehicle has a lifetime of around 15–20 years, and there is a real concern that these vehicles will remain in use even longer than intended.
At the same time, annual compliance targets accelerate production volumes, which in turn reduce manufacturing costs. Weakening that pressure slows down cost reductions and the overall transition.
Automakers often say the transition timeline is becoming increasingly difficult due to supply chains, charging infrastructure and consumer demand. Are those concerns overstated, or do they point to genuine structural challenges in the transition?
These concerns are at the core of the EV market’s interests. Although the industry and manufacturing of electric vehicles and motors were largely prepared for strict EV standards, the deployment of battery charging points remains a key priority for the coming years. Major investments and projects are planned across Europe in this area. However, there is a worry that weakening the zero-emission targets could result in an economic decline of €90 billion by 2035, with a potential loss of up to 1 million jobs compared to today. Up to two-thirds of planned battery investments in the EU could also be at risk, while the charging industry could lose €120 billion in potential revenue over the next decade.
If the Parliament ultimately pushes for some form of adjustment to the rules, what would be the red line from your perspective that would still preserve the credibility of the EU’s climate policy?
The red line that cannot be crossed is prolonging deadlines. A three-year flexibility is already more than the industry needs and should not be extended, nor should the main goal be questioned. Climate policy should include clearly defined flexibilities that maintain pressure on the classical auto industry, with a focus on decarbonization, clear signals, and worker support. This includes requalification programs, new job creation, and public or temporary works—both in infrastructure and sustainable sectors—helping displaced workers gain experience and transition to new fields, not necessarily limited to the EV industry.
Is the current debate really about technical adjustments to the CO₂ framework, or about whether Europe is willing to maintain its original timeline for the phase-out of internal combustion engines?
There is a risk that the decision on flexibility could be seen as undermining the frameworks Europe has already established. However, I am confident that the Commission will act responsibly, balancing the demands and clearly defining measures in favor of decarbonization and zero CO₂ emissions.
Mina Laković, communications officer at the European Commission, speaking on behalf of the Commission, rejected claims that all amendments proposed by the Council of the European Union had been dismissed.
She said several elements had in fact been accepted, including more than those with which the Commission broadly agrees in principle. According to her, the amendments focus largely on two core ideas, repeated in different formulations rather than offering a wider range of proposals that could open a deeper policy discussion.
From the Commission’s perspective, the debate also reflects a misunderstanding of what falls within the institution’s competence in the area of climate policy. She noted that the amendments do not address issues such as batteries or recycling, which form part of the policy areas the Commission is currently working on.
She also argued that the proposal would not have been tabled if it did not primarily serve the interests of the member states themselves.
According to her, some actors appear to approach the proposal with the intention of changing as many elements as possible, which is not how EU legislation typically evolves. In practice, amendments usually modify between 10 and 30 % of a Commission proposal.
She added that the Commission is sometimes viewed as a competitor in the process, even though its role is to act as a technical adviser. “We are not the problem for them, the Parliament is,” she said, adding that disagreements often become personalised.
She stressed that the Commission encourages all participants to express their views and that everyone involved in the process is treated on an equal footing.
The European Socialists and Democrats (ESN) have unveiled a suite of amendments to the EU’s CO₂ emissions rules, aiming to marry climate ambition with industrial realism. Central to the proposals is a phased approach that provides flexibility for manufacturers while safeguarding jobs and EU-wide targets.
For the period 2028–2030, ESN proposes a three-year compliance regime for fleet emissions. By calculating average CO₂ output over rolling three-year periods, manufacturers, including large producers like Audi and BMW, would avoid the volatility of single-year fluctuations, giving greater predictability for investment and fleet planning. The measure also extends the current weighted-average system from 2025–2027, with national exemptions for countries with particularly large or complex automotive sectors, aligning climate rules with the EU’s subsidiarity principle.
To ease the financial burden of stricter targets, ESN suggests progressive excess-emission penalties: EUR 30 per gram for the first 5 g/km above target, EUR 60 for 5–10 g/km, and EUR 95 beyond 10 g/km. Smaller manufacturers would also benefit from expanded temporary exemptions, increasing the threshold from 10,000 to 25,000 vehicles annually until 2030, before tapering to 15,000 for 2031–2035. Exemptions would expire entirely from 2036.
ESN calls for a more gradual rollout of zero-emission mandates for passenger cars and vans. National manufacturers in specific segments could benefit from exemptions until the end of 2035, with potential temporary extensions to 2039 in case of economic or industrial disruption. Mandatory reporting to the Commission would ensure transparency and maintain EU oversight.
Looking further ahead, ESN proposes mandatory consultations with national parliaments before the EU’s 2040 climate target is set, requiring that social and economic impacts be considered alongside environmental objectives. The amendments are designed to strengthen legitimacy, align long-term goals with national capacities, and balance ambitious climate planning with practical realities across member states.
The European People’s Party (EPP) has unveiled a package of amendments to the EU’s CO₂ emissions rules, balancing climate ambition with industrial pragmatism and social fairness. The proposals range from targeted relief for small-volume manufacturers to incentives for affordable electric vehicles and recognition of CO₂-neutral fuels.
Under EPP’s plan, smaller carmakers that already benefit from legal derogations would be exempt from excess emissions penalties during 2025–2027, easing pressure on producers with limited capacity to adapt rapidly to stricter CO₂ standards.
Acknowledging the long investment cycles of the automotive sector, EPP calls for a five-year transition period until 2030. During this time, manufacturers would gradually cut fleet emissions according to annual benchmarks, report progress to the Commission, and face corrective measures if targets are missed.
From 2028, carmakers would have to report full lifecycle emissions—covering everything from raw material extraction to vehicle assembly and logistics. The party also proposes that at least half of primary materials used in EU cars come from low-carbon certified supply chains by 2030, helping decarbonise upstream industries like steel, aluminium, and battery production.
To ensure transparency and credibility, vehicles would be equipped with real-world emissions monitoring systems. At the same time, the introduction of an “Eco-Saver Credit” for 2035–2040 aims to incentivise small, affordable electric cars built in Europe, giving citizens a realistic and accessible path away from fossil fuels.
The EPP also supports the use of CO₂-neutral synthetic and biofuels, allowing vehicles running exclusively on certified e-fuels or biodegradable fuels to count as zero-emission for 2035 targets. A technological neutrality framework would provide clear EU-wide certification and verification, ensuring these fuels can be deployed without undermining regulatory standards.
For transitional fairness, the amendments propose an Automotive Transition Support Facility, providing funding and technical support for SMEs, suppliers, workers, and regions affected by the shift to low-emission mobility. A mid-term review in 2029 would assess infrastructure, fuel availability, socio-economic impacts, and recommend course corrections to keep the EU on track for its 2030 and 2050 climate targets.
Finally, EPP seeks enhanced consumer transparency, mandating labels that disclose lifecycle emissions, feedstock origins, and certification details for vehicles running on CO₂-neutral fuels. By making this information publicly accessible, the party aims to empower buyers, improve accountability, and give civil society the tools to verify environmental claims.
Renew Europe has tabled a series of amendments to the EU’s CO₂ emissions proposal, seeking to ensure that the 2025–2027 compliance flexibility does not weaken long-term climate ambition, while introducing early corrective measures, workforce safeguards, annual transparency, and technological oversight.
Safeguarding CO₂ ambition during 2025–2027
The Renew Europe group has tabled an amendment to Recital 3 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, aiming to safeguard the overall environmental ambition of EU climate legislation during the 2025–2027 compliance period. While the Commission allows manufacturers a three-year flexibility mechanism to meet average CO₂ targets, Renew Europe’s amendment clarifies that this temporary measure must not dilute the long-term goal of transitioning to zero-emission mobility.
Under the proposed change, the Commission would be required to monitor and report annually on the use of this flexibility and its impact on the Union’s climate objectives.
Renew Europe justifies the amendment by warning that, without such safeguards, the three-year compliance window could be interpreted as a regulatory “holiday,” allowing manufacturers to postpone meaningful emissions reductions. By embedding explicit oversight and limiting the scope of flexibility, the amendment seeks to ensure that transitional allowances remain consistent with the EU’s broader climate neutrality objective for 2050.
Early corrective action to keep manufacturers on track
Renew has tabled an amendment to Recital 4 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, seeking to introduce accountability into the three-year compliance window. While manufacturers, including those in pooling arrangements, can currently meet average CO₂ targets over 2025–2027, the amendment would require any firm that misses its annual targets in two consecutive years to submit a corrective action plan by 31 March of the following year.
The corrective action plan would detail the measures a manufacturer intends to implement to return to compliance by the end of the three-year period. The Commission would review the plan and may issue recommendations, while the plan itself would be published to ensure transparency and public oversight.
According to Renew, the current flexibility mechanism carries a structural risk: manufacturers underperforming in 2025 and 2026 might postpone corrective actions until 2027, when remediation may no longer be feasible. The amendment establishes an early-warning system, aiming to guarantee that flexibility is used responsibly and that compliance remains transparent throughout the period.
Ensuring a fair transition for automotive workers
Renew has proposed an amendment to Recital 2 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, emphasizing that the three-year flexibility for 2025–2027 must be accompanied by measures supporting workers. While the Commission allows a one-off adjustment in calculating manufacturers’ compliance with CO₂ targets, the amendment introduces obligations to support reskilling, upskilling, and investment in employees currently working in carbon-intensive industries.
The group stresses that the transition to low-emission mobility should not come at the expense of the workforce. Member States and the EU should actively facilitate programs that prepare workers for employment in low-emission sectors, ensuring that jobs remain high-quality and sustainable throughout the automotive value chain.
According to them, combining environmental ambition with social fairness is key to maintaining public trust and strengthening European competitiveness. Supporting workers during the decarbonization of the automotive sector is essential to a successful and just green transition.
Annual limits and public transparency for compliance
Renew has tabled an amendment to Article 1(1)–Article 4(1a) of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, aiming to combine flexibility with accountability. While manufacturers may use the three-year compliance period for 2025–2027, the amendment introduces a 10% cap on annual deviations from their specific CO₂ targets.
The group emphasizes that flexibility should not become a “black box” where early-year overruns are hidden from regulators, investors, or the public. To prevent this, manufacturers using the flexibility must publicly disclose their annual emissions, targets, deviations, and planned corrective actions for each year of the period. The Commission will consolidate this information to make it accessible and comparable across manufacturers.
According to them, transparency is the condition for acceptable flexibility. By requiring annual reporting and capping deviations, the amendment ensures that manufacturers remain accountable throughout the compliance period, preserving environmental ambition while still allowing genuine flexibility during the transition to zero-emission mobility.
Pooling flexibility tied to transparency and innovation
Renew Europe has put forward an amendment to Recital 4a of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, insisting that the additional compliance flexibility for 2025–2027 should be paired with stronger transparency and technological progress.
The proposal highlights the need for enhanced data collection on real-world CO₂ emissions, alongside interoperable digital vehicle monitoring systems. This approach aims to make compliance assessments more accurate while fostering the adoption of innovative low-emission technologies across the European automotive market.
For the group, regulatory flexibility cannot come at the cost of accountability. By combining oversight with technological development, the amendment seeks to ensure that manufacturers remain responsible while accelerating the EU’s shift to a cleaner and more innovative automotive sector.
The Greens/European Free Alliance group has tabled amendments to the Commission’s CO₂ proposal that would tighten rules on manufacturer pooling, requiring each participating carmaker to meet at least 95% of its individual CO₂ emissions target even when participating in pooling arrangements.
Greens seek tighter limits on manufacturer pooling
The Greens group has proposed tightening the rules for manufacturer pooling under Recital 4 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. While the Commission’s text allows carmakers to enter pooling agreements for the years 2025–2027 until the end of 2027, the amendment would add a condition: each participating manufacturer would still have to meet at least 95% of its individual CO₂ emissions target.
According to the group, the change is meant to keep pooling as a limited flexibility tool rather than a way for manufacturers to rely on stronger performers to offset their emissions. By requiring each company to meet almost all of its own target, the amendment preserves environmental ambition while still leaving a narrow 5% margin to account for production disruptions or unexpected market conditions.
Greens propose stricter conditions for manufacturer pooling
Another amendment from the Greens targets Article 1(2) of the Commission’s proposal, which extends the deadline for carmakers to form emissions “pools” covering the 2025 and 2026 compliance years until the end of 2027. Pooling allows manufacturers to combine their emissions performance in order to meet EU targets collectively.
Under the proposed change, companies could still enter such agreements, but only if each manufacturer within the pool individually achieves at least 95% of its own CO₂ emissions target. The group argues that this threshold keeps pooling as a limited flexibility tool while ensuring individual responsibility for emissions reductions. A small 5% margin would remain to accommodate production disruptions or other unforeseen circumstances without weakening the overall climate ambition.
S&D has tabled a series of amendments to the European Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal aimed at strengthening long-term accountability, ensuring consistent reporting, and supporting a socially fair transition in the automotive sector. The changes include annual weighting for repeated non-compliance, mandatory yearly reporting for all manufacturers, earmarking CO₂ penalty revenues for workforce retraining and regional support, and conditioning flexibility or “super-credits” on concrete Just Transition Workforce Plans.
S&D proposes annual weighting for future CO₂ compliance
The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) has tabled an amendment to Article 4 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. The amendment introduces a mechanism for manufacturers that exceed their average CO₂ emissions over the 2025–2027 period: in addition to the penalties under Article 8, future evaluations of their emissions performance would be weighted yearly.
S&D justifies the amendment as a way to strengthen long-term accountability. By increasing the impact of repeated non-compliance, the proposal aims to incentivise manufacturers to meet targets consistently, rather than treating penalties as a one-off cost of business.
S&D insists on annual reporting for all manufacturers
The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) has proposed an amendment to Article 7 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. Under the amendment, all manufacturers, whether evaluated every three years, annually, or qualifying for derogations under Article 10—would remain obligated to submit emissions reports on an annual basis.
S&D justifies the amendment as a measure to maintain transparency and oversight. Regular annual reporting ensures that regulators can monitor progress consistently and prevents gaps in compliance data, even for manufacturers benefiting from evaluation flexibilities or derogations.
S&D proposes using CO₂ penalty revenues to support a just transition
S&D has proposed an amendment to Article 8(4) of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. While the current text allocates excess emissions premium revenues to the EU general budget, the amendment would earmark at least 50% of these funds for a Union programme supporting a just transition in the automotive sector. This includes re-skilling and up-skilling workers in the automotive value chain, support for regions heavily reliant on automotive manufacturing, and training or employment initiatives linked to zero-emission technologies such as battery production, EV manufacturing, and charging infrastructure.
S&D justifies the amendment as a response to the social impact of the EU’s shift to zero-emission mobility. Allocating part of the penalties to workforce development and regional support ensures the transition is socially fair and economically sustainable, while preserving strong incentives for manufacturers to reduce emissions.
S&D links CO₂ flexibility to workforce transition plans
S&D has tabled an amendment adding a new paragraph 3a to Article 5 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. Under the change, any flexibility or use of “super-credits” would be conditional on manufacturers submitting a “Just Transition Workforce Plan.” This plan must include binding commitments to vocational retraining, up-skilling, and job-security measures for employees in regions negatively affected by the shift to zero-emission mobility.
The amendment aims to make the principles of a socially acceptable transition, outlined in Recital 12, legally binding rather than aspirational. By tying compliance flexibilities to concrete workforce investments, it ensures manufacturers benefiting from the 2025–2027 adjustment are actively supporting employees and regions impacted by the EU’s transition to zero-emission vehicles.
The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group has tabled a series of amendments to the European Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal, targeting key aspects of the EU’s electric vehicle strategy. The changes include a binding review of 2025–2027 CO₂ targets if EV uptake falls short, conditions linking penalties to the availability of charging infrastructure, an affordability assessment for households, and simplified pooling rules to help smaller manufacturers comply. Together, the amendments aim to introduce accountability, fairness, and practical support for both consumers and producers across the EU.
ECR proposes automatic review of CO₂ targets if EV uptake lags
Among several amendments tabled today, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group has proposed a change to Recital 2 of the Commission’s CO₂ emissions proposal. The original text allows a temporary, “one-off” flexibility for 2025–2027, in response to stakeholders’ requests. The ECR amendment adds a binding review mechanism: if zero- and low-emission vehicles fail to reach 25% of new passenger car registrations EU-wide by 31 December 2026, the Commission would be required, by 30 June 2027, to propose revised CO₂ targets for 2028–2035.
ECR justifies the amendment by pointing to the Commission’s own language, which acknowledges the flexibility is temporary. Without a legally binding review, the group warns, similar shortfalls could recur in 2028. The proposal aims to ensure legislative accountability and a mechanism to adjust targets if market developments fall short of expectations.
ECR links CO₂ penalties to EV charging infrastructure
Another amendment from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group addresses Article 4(1a) of the Commission’s CO₂ regulation proposal. The original text obliges manufacturers, including pooled members, to ensure that their average CO₂ emissions for 2025–2027 do not exceed their targets, without exceptions.
The ECR amendment conditions penalties on the availability of charging infrastructure: excess emissions premiums would not apply in Member States where publicly accessible charging points do not reach a minimum density of one per 50 kilometres in rural and semi-rural areas, as defined by Eurostat. The Commission would be tasked with verifying and publishing charging infrastructure density annually, with penalties suspended in non-compliant states until the threshold is met.
The group argues that the current rule imposes an unconditional obligation, ignoring the reality that citizens in rural areas of Romania, Poland, and southern Italy often have no access to charging within a reasonable distance. Penalising manufacturers under such conditions, they say, is disproportionate and inconsistent with Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, which stresses proportionality and fairness.
ECR calls for affordability check before CO₂ penalties
The ECR group’s third amendment targets the same Article 4(1a) of the Commission’s CO₂ regulation proposal. While the original text obliges manufacturers, including pool members, to meet average CO₂ targets for 2025–2027, the amendment introduces a mandatory affordability assessment.
Under the proposal, before any excess emissions premium is applied, the Commission would assess and publish, for each Member State, whether zero- and low-emission vehicles are financially accessible to households at or below the national median income. If these vehicles are not affordable to the majority, penalties would be suspended until affordability conditions are met.
ECR justifies the amendment by highlighting the EU’s EV market reality: average new EV prices range between €35,000 and €45,000, while median monthly incomes in countries such as Romania are around €1,200. The group notes that neither “affordability” nor “infrastructure” are addressed in the Commission’s recitals, and the amendment aims to introduce a minimum standard of economic fairness before manufacturers are penalised.
ECR seeks simplified pooling for smaller manufacturers
The fourth ECR amendment focuses on Article 6(2) of the Commission’s CO₂ regulation proposal. The original text allows pooling agreements for 2025 or 2026 to be entered into until 31 December 2027.
ECR’s amendment adds a measure to support smaller manufacturers: by 31 December 2025, the Commission would publish a standardised pooling agreement template for firms producing fewer than 100,000 vehicles annually. Manufacturers using the template would be exempt from administrative fees, receive automatic registration of their pooling arrangement upon submission, and would not need legal representation to participate.
The group argues that simply extending the deadline benefits only larger manufacturers with in-house legal teams, like Volkswagen or Stellantis. Smaller firms, such as family-run operations in Pitești with 200 employees, lack the institutional capacity to navigate complex procedures. The amendment is intended to make pooling genuinely accessible to small and medium-sized producers across the EU.
Lawmakers from multiple political groups in the European Parliament indicated both disagreements and potential areas of compromise ahead of today’s amendments deadline.
Mihajlo Pujić, Patriots for Europe group, said he sees scope for agreement among lawmakers as negotiations continue ahead of the amendments deadline.
“I see potential for us to reach a conclusion together with this body. We still have a lot ahead of us, but today’s discussion showed that there is some alignment on amendments and a willingness to work constructively,” Pujić said.
He acknowledged that disagreements remain and noted that several key participants were absent from the debate, but said he expected discussions to continue as lawmakers work toward a compromise.
Milica Stankić, European People’s Party, said members of her group expect to take a more active role in the discussions as additional colleagues join the session ahead of the amendments deadline.
“Our party is one of the biggest, and although many colleagues could not attend today’s session, they will join us tomorrow. I hope that my amendment, as well as those proposed by my colleagues from the EPP, will be accepted,” Stankić said.
She said the proposals aim to support environmental goals while also protecting European jobs, stressing that policies affecting the automotive sector should balance climate objectives with the need to safeguard employment.
Sara Terbec, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, said her group plans to finalise its amendments ahead of the deadline, while remaining open to compromise in ongoing negotiations.
“Tomorrow we will finalise our amendments. As we mentioned today, our main focus is on restricting the use of biofuels, and S&D is against that, but we are open to some compromises regarding the three-year extension,” Terbec said.
She added that the group sees climate policy and industrial policy as closely linked, arguing that efforts to address climate change should go hand in hand with protecting European industry.
Terbec also said the group remains focused on workers’ rights and social equality, expressing hope that an agreement could be reached with colleagues across the political spectrum, particularly on the left.
Luka Đoković, European Conservatives and Reformists, said his group does not plan to go beyond the positions it outlined during the day’s discussion, but added that members are continuing to work on preparations ahead of the following day’s negotiations.
