Petzl: Because of the Euro 7 standard, there is a risk of a drop in production by up to a third and unemployment

The Commission presented the proposal in an extremely strict form. It’s a scary report that contains a number of fundamental problems. One of them is the date of entry into force in 2025. At the same time, the draft itself with the implementing regulations, which are supposed to explain what measurements are to be made and in what way, will still be finalized.

As a manufacturer, you need to know the regulation at least three or four years in advance, so that you can prepare for it, i.e. buy equipment, test it and then homologate it.

If the proposal were to pass in its current form, it would realistically lead to the cancellation of a number of models.

No, because the Commission has also presented another proposal setting CO2 emission targets for heavy goods vehicles and buses, including a proposal to ban city buses with internal combustion engines as early as 2030. All of this together will dramatically push prices up. Given the triple purchase price of a bus with a non-combustion drive, the ticket might not cost 30 or 40 crowns, but perhaps 120 crowns.

The cheapest passenger cars, which today cost around 300,000 crowns, you will not be able to buy later, because their price will increase by 150,000, manual transmissions and the like will end.

We hope that the proposal will be modified in the negotiations.

The impact of the proposal as it stands would be dire. Within the automotive industry alone, it would reduce its share of GDP by three percent, vehicle production by 20 to 30 percent already in 2025, and 25 to 30 thousand people would lose their jobs directly in the automotive industry. Another thousands in related fields.

Number one is definitely the entry into force date of the standard. The one currently proposed is unworkable nonsense that dramatically interferes with the planning of car companies. They have to plan at least five years ahead in order for production to work. It’s not just about vehicle development, but they have to have contracted capacity, parts, staff and so on. Entry into force should therefore be postponed for four years after all relevant implementing regulations are clearly known.

Boundary conditions should also be abolished. The new strict limits that were set in the draft standard must be met by the vehicle in all extreme cases. Until now, it was assumed that we have a normal driver who drives normally.

All of a sudden, the car has to meet the limits when it drives on the flat in the summer, just like when you get into a car frozen to minus ten degrees in Zell am See in the morning, hook up a trailer and drive up over the pass. In both of these cases, according to the current form of the proposal, the vehicle should meet the same volume of emissions, and that is not possible.

We are in contact. Germany, although an automotive powerhouse, has recently been scattered in terms of its response to emissions. We are only now beginning to hear from their political representatives, for example from the Minister of Economy and Climate Protection Robert Habeck and others, that they realize that the impacts not only on industry and citizens are much greater than they originally thought.

At the same time, the benefit for which it was all done, i.e. the positive benefits for the environment, is marginal. The benefit of Euro 7 in a limited time between 2025 and 2035 (when should cars with internal combustion engines end – editor’s note) will be in the units of a percentage at most for emissions, but the impacts on citizens and industry will be dramatic.

I do not understand the balance that the legislator considered in this case. It is essential that social impacts, environmental benefits, industrial impacts and more are also balanced.

I have to say that the people from the car industry were not really there at all. We have drawn attention to this historically, yet the standard was practically not consulted with us.

Non-governmental organizations, such as Transport & Environment, which have no responsibility, only report beautiful green slogans to the world, but do not answer questions about what this will mean in practice, have gained much more space for consultation. From this completely unrealistic point of view, the European official presented the proposal that we have on the table. It is completely unbalanced and liquidating.

Certainly. We made an overview of this, and if today we produce thirteen vehicle models in six different categories in the Czech Republic, in 2025, i.e. in two years, four models would suddenly end. They would definitely be vehicles from the category of smaller cars, which would reach half a million crowns in price and would suddenly cease to make economic sense for their customers.

They are vehicles that are mostly not bought by companies, but by people for their own use. In the Czech Republic, 30 percent of vehicles sold belong to the category of small cars, which would cease to exist as a result of the current Euro 7 proposal.

It would not only be about some Škoda models, but also Toyotas.

If people stopped buying new cars because of the price, it would slow down the emission reduction. Emissions are determined by the age of the vehicle fleet and the kilometers driven. Older vehicles often emit more emissions during shorter journeys. As the fleet ages, it will mean a deterioration in emissions and road safety. It has no positive effect.

It is so. There are requirements for measuring emissions, e.g. for wear from tires or brakes, for which today it is not at all defined how to measure them, there is no technology and we don’t even know where we should go. In addition, the vehicle should constantly monitor itself, and for some of the emissions mentioned, the sensors do not have the resolution they need for this.