Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAnd we are the first defense omnibus that was concluded. We are still waiting for Coreper to finalize the two other packages. Trilogues on the third one will take place next week and we expect that we would have a committee vote later this month and hopefully vote then in plenary in July because of course there is urgency to complete this. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Laura, and now if anyone has questions, so this is the time, but I don't see any questions. Thanks once again, our co-rapporteur on this report. And now we are moving to item eight, environmental omnibus. And we've got about 30 minutes for the discussion. The rapporteur, Mr. Ratas, will present the draft opinion, two minutes, and after this I will invite the shadows for one minute, and then will be the catch the eye, please give me the sign.
And we've got Commission representative with us, Mr. Stefan Lehner, head of unit for industrial emissions and safety in DG ENVI. For and and I then I give the floor. So first, Mr. Ratas, the floor is yours.
Jüri Ratas
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, let me briefly outline the main ideas behind my draft. First of all, the Commission proposal is welcome and I think it goes in the right direction, but it does not fully meet the level of ambitions that many of us actually expects. My amendments have a clear goal. If we simplify certain requirements and reduce administrative burden, we must do it in a way that also strengthens the competitiveness of our companies.
We must not weaken environmental protection, but we need a balanced approach. We need a framework that is more proportionate, more workable, and more future-proof. In ITRE, I think we stand for making sure that the voice of industry is heard. If we see unnecessary overregulation, duplication, or deadlines that are unrealistic for operators, then we should act. Let me highlight a few concrete points.
First, when we look at the Industrial Emissions Directive, my aim is to remove unnecessary burdens and overly complex reporting requirements. One example is the new obligation for additional environmental management system. It would force companies to prepare a second set of documents, even though most already follow recognized standards. Removing this avoids duplication, which is especially important for smaller companies and firms. The second, the introduction of a presumption of proportionality between costs and environmental benefits is a new addition inspired by Net Zero Industry Act that ensures requirements remain realistic and economically viable.
The third, I also believe we need more realistic emission rules. I propose adjusting the rule that pushes installations towards the strictest theoretical emission levels. More flexibility with the best available techniques range and a clear exemption procedure would help operators comply in a practical way. The fourth, timing is another key issue. Companies now have four years to adapt to new best available techniques conclusions, but investment cycles are much longer.
Extending this to eight years would give industry a realistic and predictable timeframe. And the fifth, I also propose widening the scope for justified exemptions. This would help in cases where immediate compliance is technically or economically impossible and would keep industry activity in Europe instead of pushing it elsewhere. Taken together, these adjustments make the framework more practical, more predictable, and better aligned with our goal of maintaining a competitive industrial base. I of course look forward your views and and your amendments tomorrow.
I remain hopeful that we can find a balance and the necessary compromise. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now it's time for our shadows, so first Niels Fuglsang.
Niels Fuglsang
Thank you very much, Chair. And thank you, Yuri, dear rapporteur, thank you for presenting your draft opinion today. And let me start by commending what I consider to be a pragmatic approach from your side. I appreciated the introductory shadow meetings, we already had one shadow meeting where we had the chance to to share our initial positions at an early stage. And I think that approach is is very good, so I look forward to more of that.
That being said, while I very much appreciate the process so far, I must admit I have significant reservations regarding some of the key elements in the draft opinion. My starting point remains that we have a Commission proposal which, although with some shortcomings, provides a reasonable basis for negotiations. Personally, I'm not overly enthusiastic about every element in the Commission proposal. I believe that some of the issues addressed in the omnibus could have been dealt with more appropriately through other legislative or policy processes. Nevertheless, here we are, and I do believe that an agreement should be possible if we remain within the scope of what the Commission has proposed.
And that might, that's my key message, that I think that we need to to stick to the scope that the Commission lays out. I support simplification where it makes sense. Unnecessary reporting obligations should be should be done away with, and of course that's the way, I mean, I think we share this goal. However, simplification should not lead us to weakening environmental protection and reduce our ability to prevent industrial pollution. And so I'm concerned with some of the elements in the draft opinion that move in this direction.
As far as I can see, in a number of cases, the amendments go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and raise broader questions about the level of environmental protection that should be ensured in the Industrial Emissions Directive. For example, I believe that we can have a constructive discussion on how to simplify and streamline requirements for environmental management systems under the IED, but questioning whether environmental management systems should continue to to exist in this directive, I think that's a fundamentally different discussion that I don't I don't want to go into that because I think that should be a given.
So with the amendment deadline tomorrow, I will be tabling a number of amendments within the scope of of the Commission proposal. I hope that we can arrive at a balanced outcome that simplifies requirements where where appropriate while preserving the environmental safeguards that we have. For me, the best way to achieve that is to stay within the scope of the Commission's proposal. And so to conclude, I look forward to the discussions. I know, Juri, that that you have a a good approach when it comes to cooperation, so I think let's see if we can we can find some some good balance.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And Ondřej Knotek is the co-rapporteur from PPE, but on behalf of Ondřej, it will be Jana Nagyová.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, I'm speaking behalf of Ondřej. Principally, we are in favor of the Commission proposal as it brings some back some pragmatism to environmental legislation after years of ideology. We especially concerning Waste Framework Directive, we will come for foreseen deletion of so-called SCIP database. Then furthermore, we are very much in favor of harmonizing reporting frequency under extended producer responsibility scheme.
In addition, we do support plan to abolish the obligation for chemical inventory, risk assessment and substitution inspections. We also agree with the Commission proposal to repeal requirement for three-year EMAS audit by accredited body. As well, we welcome the to repeal obligation for operators of installation in several categories to prepare for specific transformation plans for period 2030-2050. What we find helpful for the industry is the foreseen flexibility in applying emission limits like for oxy-fuels. Regarding livestock farming, which we find very welcome, we are in favor of the harmonization of the approach to organic farming.
However, this is still not enough. We need stop-the-clock mechanism for all articles to be adopted within the IED to guarantee legal certainty and to avoid double work for Member State who otherwise would have to implement first current legislation and then repeal it sometime later. So therefore, Mr. Knotek will propose some changes concerning measurement of emission limit values related to natural gas. To conclude, proposal goes in the right direction, but some slight changes will still submit. Thank you very much.
Anna Zalewska
Thank you, I speak Polish. Bardzo dziękuję i cieszę się, że każdy rozpoczyna zwrotem, że propozycje Komisji Europejskiej idą w dobrym kierunku. To dobrze wróży pracy. Natomiast nie ukrywam, że EKR będzie w zakresie proponowanych zmian sięgać jeszcze głębiej, dlatego że wiemy od przedsiębiorców, ale czytamy też raporty, że obecna architektura klimatyczna Unii Europejskiej, no, cechuje się nadmierną regulacją, obciążeniami dla właściwie każdej dziedziny gospodarki, co zresztą też wynika z tego, że prawo klimatyczne, które jest tym tą bazą do pisania całego prawa czy jakby rozporządzeń klimatycznych, zostało stworzone źle policzone przed pandemią, przed wojną i przed wszystkimi możliwymi kryzysami gospodarczymi i nie ma żadnej refleksji.
Dlatego będziemy pracować porządkując też te propozycje tak żeby one trochę starczyły na dłużej. Pamiętajcie państwo że na przykład jeżeli chodzi o zmiany w dyrektywie dotyczącej emisji przemysłowych raptem dwa lata temu skończyliśmy nad tym pracę ja zresztą przestrzegałam przed nadmierną regulacją. Ale nie ukrywamy że będziemy dążyć będziemy to podkreślać oczywiście i w tym dokumencie choć nie dotyczy on tejże kwestii do tego co jest podstawą kręgosłupem no kryzysu gospodarczego w Europie to znaczy do diametralnych zmian w ETS-ie. To jest główny cel mojej grupy politycznej każde takie propozycje przyjmujemy z satysfakcją ale one są jednak bardzo wybiórcze dotykają tylko niektórych sfer niekoniecznie rozwiązującej do końca problem. Dziękuję.
Borys Budka
Bardzo dziękuję pani poseł i and now I give the floor to Mr. Stefan Leiner from the Commission. Oh I'm sorry it's just my just a moment. Yeah I haven't seen seen our shadows so so I apologize both of you and first we've got also the shadow from Renew Mr. Martin Hojsík the floor is yours. No. Okay.
Mr. Martin is absent so we've got the shadow from Greens. Ah it should be Mrs. Ville Sondal but on behalf...
Villy Søvndal
It's me. Yeah thank you very much.
And sorry for this little mess once again.
No no problem. First of all thank you to the rapporteur. I'm the new shadow from the Green group so I have taken over Peter Hansen's seat here in ITRE. I'm elected in in Denmark and I look forward to the cooperation we're going to have. I think we should be aware in this discussion that the coin has two sides.
One is that regulation not needed of course should not be there. But on the other hand if you backtrack on the green ambition a lot of the very progressive green companies we have in Denmark would feel very sorry. So the industry is divided in this discussion depending on which kind of products they produce. I would therefore have wanted maybe to to be a bit a bit more aware that this and all other omnibuses I think are not the right way to secure a green innovative and sustainable industry production and waste management in the EU. There are some elements in the current proposals that are reasonable but most of the proposals need a lot of change to be going in the right direction from our point of view.
The legislation was made with a purpose to improve sustainability and innovation and we should not punish those who have already invested to be able to live up to the European laws. I think the risk then would be that then some companies would leave Europe to invest their money in other parts of the world where there are higher green ambitions. The industry needs predictability not this type of random adjustments that are done without real thought about their consequences. So we'll also work on a better balance in this proposal.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now once again I give the floor to our guest from Commission, Mr. Stefan Lehner.
Stefan Lehner
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, the honorable members. First of all, I would like to thank you and I see that there is a lot of common ground in what is the objective of this environmental omnibus proposal from the Commission, which is to facilitate implementation of existing laws in the achievement of environmental objectives while at the same time reducing the unnecessary bureaucracy for business and boosting the single market and making competitiveness a reality. Targeted amendments to the IED, but also to other pieces of legislation, I will focus on the IED as this is I think the main piece of legislation that is also subject to the amendments in my intervention, have been proposed therefore by the Commission as part of this omnibus package to reduce the administrative cost of environmental legislation, for example by simplifying the requirements for environmental management systems and facilitating the permitting of decarbonization technologies. But, and this is very important, the environmental omnibus is not about deregulation. The proposed changes to the IED in the draft opinion would, in our view, result in such deregulation.
And therefore we would make some comments on some of them. For example, concerning the proposed introduction in Article 15(3) of a criterion according to which cost difference of more than 10% for achieving the strictest end of the BAT-AELs range vis-à-vis the lenient end of the BAT-AEL range should be presumed unreasonable. The proposed amendment number 12 would decrease the effectiveness of the IED in preventing and reducing pollution. It would also likely increase administrative burden as it would implicitly require the operators and the competent authorities to perform cost calculations associated with both the most lenient and the strictest end of the BAT-AEL range, i.e. this amendment would be more deregulation than simplification. Concerning the proposed introduction of a presumption of disproportionality of costs when applying for a derogation from emission levels, and there are many amendments to that end in the proposal.
This would be tantamount to, in our view, a blanket derogation to emission levels, i.e. in a way a right to pollute which would lead to an uneven playing field, rewarding actually the worst performance because they would have to do the most investment in getting to implementing the cleaner technologies. So it would disincentivize innovation and make BAT conclusion in many cases obsolete because operator would just have to prove that he has more than 10% of investments, for example, and that would be a disproportionate cost and therefore those emission levels would not need to be met. And it is also against established case law of the Court of Justice of the EU according to which derogation must be interpreted strictly. Concerning the proposed extension of the deadline for compliance with newly published BAT conclusions from four to eight years, this would make the BAT conclusions already quite obsolete by the time they would apply because you would have, first of all you have four years of time of developing those BAT conclusions and then if you have another eight years until the operators have to apply the best available techniques, it means that you are 12 years after those best available techniques have been identified before they become law and become applicable and we think four years is really enough and has proved over the 20 plus years of implementation of the IED sufficient time for operators to adapt to the new provisions.
And last comment maybe to the proposal that was raised on stop the clock. It is essential to ensure legal certainty and a smooth implementation process for Member States, competent authorities and industry. Some of the provisions introduced by the 2024 amendments, including flexibilities available in situations such as energy or raw material crises are linked to the timely transposition. So it is important that these are timely transposed so those flexibilities can be applied as soon as possible. And I would also stress that any possible stop the clock proposal would only enter into force and be applicable after the transposition deadline of the 1st of July 2026.
So it would create a big legal uncertainty for both operators but also Member State permitting authorities. Having said that, we will be mindful of our proposed omnibus directive when we look into the way that Member States have transposed the directive, meaning if they are not transposing those elements that are subject to the Commission proposal, for example on environmental management system, obviously we will not start infringement procedures on those. So that means that Member States can transpose the relevant parts of the IED, but if they put on hold those parts that we are discussing or that are in the Commission proposal, obviously this is something the Commission will will understand. I will leave it to that. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much because I haven't seen any catch the eye, so I will give the floor for final remarks our rapporteur Mr Ratas.
Jüri Ratas
Yeah, thank you Chair. I remember when I made my first bachelor degree then the topic was sustainable development and it was more than 25 years ago and then was the main issue if we are talking to sustainable development how to find the balance between the environment, economy and social affairs. And I think actually it's still really relevant and important also when we are talking this Envi Omnibus. But of course I'm really appreciate for this discussion and especially to all the colleagues who took the floor. Thank you.
I think today's interventions showed how wide actually the range of views in this committee is. Some of us want to maintain a very high level of environmental ambition and fear that the Commission proposal goes too far in simplifying the rules. Of course others believe that proposals moves in the right direction but that the European Parliament and ITRE in particularly should aim for even stronger improvements. From my side I would simply like to recall that in the ITRE opinion our focus is not primarily environmental issues. We look at this file through the perspective of industry competitiveness.
Our role is to ensure that the framework remains workable for our companies, support they need to stay competitive. Of course the discussion will not be over and not be easy as as well and the position expressed today confirmed that. Still I I really hope that we could find this balance and workable solution which protects the environment while also supporting Europeans industrial competitiveness. Thank you once again and I I really hope that we will have further constructive exchange. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, and I just want to underline the deadline for amendments is tomorrow, 4th of June at 12:00. And now we will have the short break because our next item is the presentation by the Commission, so it is 10 and 11, I announced it before. So we will wait for Commission and I hope we will start within 10 minutes, so about 10:45.
So, please take your seats. We've got Commission with us. So it will be the item 10 and 9 now and, oh I'm sorry, 10 and 11 and then we will go back to item 9. So it is laying down the rules for participation of the Kingdom of Norway and Iceland to the GOVSATCOM component of the Union Space Programme and in the Union Secure Connectivity Programme. So we've got for this approximately 30 minutes and Commission will present very briefly two international agreements concerning on the issues I've mentioned.
And I'd like to thank our guest from European Commission to be with us and I give the floor to our guest to make her opening statement. We've got the head of unit for legal international and coordinator at DG DEFIS, Mrs. Yolanda van Eijndhoven. So the floor is yours for the presentation and then our rapporteur Paolo Borchia.
Yolanda van Eijndhoven
Good morning, thank you chair and thank you very much for the invite to present indeed these two agreements on the table for the participation of the Kingdom of Norway in GOVSATCOM and Secure Connectivity and Iceland in GOVSATCOM and Secure Connectivity. Now it is important to highlight that on the basis of Article 39 of the Union Security Connectivity Programme Regulation and Article 7 of the Union Space Programme Regulation, the participation of third countries in respectively Secure Connectivity and GOVSATCOM shall be organised via a standalone international agreement in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The participation of both countries in Secure Connectivity and GOVSATCOM is arranged in one agreement per country because both programmes are intertwined, GOVSATCOM being also the service centre for Secure Connectivity and because the same conditions apply for both countries' participation in both programmes. Norway requested the start of the negotiations on an agreement on the 20th of April 2023 and Iceland on 14 December 2023. Important to underline that besides this agreement for both countries, there will also be a decision of the EEA Joint Committee which will arrange the financial contribution of both countries.
Work on that is progressing in the Council where we know that there will first be a session of the EFTA working party after which both Coreper and Council will also cast their vote. Now following the adoption of the Council decision on the signing of the agreements, the agreement was signed by the European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius, on behalf of the EU alongside Ms. Cecilie Myrseth, the Norwegian Minister of Trade and Industry and Mr. Stefán Haukur Jóhannesson, the Ambassador of Iceland to the EU.
Now, the arrangement arranges the exact scope of the cooperation and participation. It also determines the designation of a competent secure connectivity authority in both countries. It also addresses enhanced Arctic coverage, the eligibility and participation conditions for entities from Norway and Iceland, and also the participation in committees and in the security elements on the programs. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much and now I give the floor to our rapporteur Paolo Borchia, two minutes.
Paolo Borchia
Thank you, thank you very much. Thanks a lot to the European Commission representatives as well. We are today asked to examine two agreements allowing Iceland and Norway to participate in GOVSATCOM component of the EU space program and in the EU secure connectivity program. The substance of these agreements is relatively straightforward. They allow trusted European Economic Area partners to contribute capabilities and access program services under clearly defined conditions, while preserving EU ownership of the infrastructure, compliance with all relevant security requirements, and exclusive decision-making authority remaining with the European Union.
For these reasons, basically, I believe we can support the conclusion of both agreements. That said, it is important that today's discussion does not stop at the technical content of the two files, because there is also a significant institutional dimension that deserves attention. Well, Article 218.10 of the Treaty is unambiguous: Parliament must be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure. Only timely and ongoing information allows Parliament to effectively exercise the responsibilities conferred on it by the Treaties. This principle matters even more for programs such as GOVSATCOM and secure connectivity, which involve critical infrastructure, advanced technologies, security-sensitive capabilities, and substantial public investment set to shape Europe's technological capacity, resilience, and communication networks for many years to come.
I think that parliamentary scrutiny should not be seen as a procedural burden, but as an essential element of good governance. And in light of these considerations, I recommend once again that the committee support both recommendations. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you Paolo and now co-rapporteurs, one minute for each, Angelika Winzig.
Angelika Winzig
Ich spreche kurz auf Deutsch. Mit der Beteiligung Islands und Norwegens setzen wir ein wichtiges geopolitisches Signal. Europa stärkt seine sichere satellitengestützte Kommunikation gemeinsam mit engen und verlässlichen Partnern im Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum.
Gerade in Zeiten wachsender hybrider Bedrohungen, zunehmender Cyberangriffe und geopolitischer Spannungen müssen wir unsere strategische Resilienz in Europa ausbauen. Sichere Konnektivität ist längst keine technische Frage, sondern eine Frage der Sicherheit und Souveränität. Dass Island und Norwegen am GOVSATCOM Secure Connectivity Programme teilnehmen, entspricht ausdrücklich den Zielen der europäischen Weltraumstrategie und der Space Strategy for Security and Defence. Besonders die geografische Lage beider Länder im hohen Norden und in der Arktis ist von strategischer Bedeutung für sichere Navigation, Krisenreaktion, maritime Sicherheit und resiliente Kommunikation in einer Region, deren geopolitische Relevanz stetig wächst. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much, and now on behalf of Bruno Gonçalves, it will be Mr. Nils Fuglsang.
Niels Fuglsang
Thank you, Chair, and as Bruno Gonçalves, our good colleague, is hindered today, I will read a statement from him. Dear colleagues, as we live through a profound reshaping of the geopolitical landscape, the EU must build up its strategic autonomy. Indeed, we should reduce dependencies on third countries and ensure more ownership over our networks. But for S&D, enhancing our own capacities does not mean regressing to a world without cooperation. In fact, working with trusted partners is part of a diversification effort, which will allow Europe to thrive.
We consider a positive development the intention of Iceland and Norway to participate and contribute to our deployment of satellite systems. Conditions shall be clear and ensure that there is a mutual benefit in the access to the Union Space Programme and the Secure Connectivity Programme. And there is no doubt about the importance of the GOVSATCOM. It's not a vanity project. This is what allows our confidential information not to be accessed by foreign actors.
This is also how we can securely communicate during an emergency, such as the climate catastrophe, not just among the relevant authorities, but directly with the affected communities as well. The question is simple: do we prefer to work together and build a solution that protects Europe, or are we trusting Elon Musk and Starlink to be the backbone of our network? I think the answer is very clear, and I hope the European institutions pursue the path of resilience through cooperation. Thank you.
Elena Donazzan
Grazie, Presidente. Accolgo con favore la proposta di consentire a Norvegia e Islanda di partecipare alla componente GOVSATCOM e al programma dell'Unione. La Norvegia è un partner affidabile, alleato NATO e membro dell'ESA, con solide capacità nei settori spaziale e marittimo. Proprio per questo, nei temi spaziali dovrebbe essere considerata sempre più come una parte integrante del nostro ecosistema europeo. Tra l'altro, in Norvegia si stanno sviluppando capacità di accesso allo spazio, in particolare con alcuni progetti di uno spazioporto pensato per il lancio di piccoli satelliti in orbita polare.
Questo si collega direttamente alle priorità europee su autonomia strategica e filiera spaziale.
In ambito spaziale con i partner più stretti per rafforzare il mercato unico, evitare frammentazioni e valorizzare al meglio competenze e investimenti comuni. Anche l'Islanda rappresenta un partner strategico in ambito di difesa, sicurezza nell'ottica di una strategia europea della regione artica. La loro partecipazione rafforzerà la resilienza, la sicurezza e l'autonomia delle nostre comunicazioni satellitari in particolare nell'Artico e nell'alto Nord. La partecipazione di Norvegia e Islanda quindi non possono che essere accolte positivamente. Grazie.
Christophe GRUDLER
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je veux d'abord me féliciter de ces deux accords qui ouvrent à la Norvège et à l'Islande la participation à nos programmes GOVSATCOM et IRIS². Je tiens déjà à dire que le GOVSATCOM Hub fonctionne bien. Nous étions en mission officielle ITRE la semaine dernière avec les collègues Niebler, Farsky et Krutílek et nous avons pu opérer nous-mêmes le GOVSATCOM Hub depuis Prague et ça fonctionne. C'est le premier étage d'IRIS², c'est important de le dire.
Je voulais remercier la Commission pour la négociation. Je voulais remercier en tant que rapporteur pour IRIS², en tant que rapporteur pour le programme spatial, mais aussi en tant que vice-président de la délégation du Parlement européen pour la Norvège et l'Islande. C'est un signal fort. Avec ces voisins proches, nous bâtissons une coopération toujours plus étroite sur les communications par satellite. Et ces communications sécurisées pour nos militaires ou pour nos services sensibles dans le contexte actuel sont parmi nos outils les plus stratégiques.
Concrètement, GOVSATCOM met en commun les capacités satellitaires existantes et ça sera maintenant accessible à l'Islande et à la Norvège. Et d'ici la fin de la décennie, IRIS², notre constellation européenne de dernière génération, sera opérationnelle. Je veux aussi souligner un point essentiel : cette ouverture à des pays tiers se fait par des accords dédiés négociés au titre de l'article 218. En effet, qui préserve totalement la sécurité de nos programmes. Nous devons continuer ceci, notamment dans le cadre de notre nouveau programme spatial négocié dans le cadre du fonds de compétitivité.
Merci.
Borys Budka
Thank you. This is the finish of our shadows and now in the catch-the-eye procedure I've got one person and it is Mrs Niebler, so the floor is yours.
Angelika Niebler
Vielen Dank Herr Vorsitzender und Dankeschön auch an die Kommission und die Kollegen und Kolleginnen für die Präsentation. Ich habe nur eine Frage. Also ich finde das Abkommen super gut, dass wir die Regionen Norwegen und Island einbinden auch in unsere Weltraumstrategie. Ich habe nur eine Frage nochmal auch an die Kommission. Wir reden jetzt von GOVSATCOM, aber was ist mit IRIS², das ist ja auch gesicherte Kommunikation, letztlich die Fortsetzung von GOVSATCOM.
Ist das auch schon Teil der Vereinbarung oder gibt's da ein neues Agreement? Aber wie sind da die Pläne, das würde mich noch interessieren. Danke.
Borys Budka
Thank you. Now the time for Commission to answer the questions, three minutes.
Yolanda van Eijndhoven
Thank you Chair. I think there was one question indeed from the honorable member Niebler. The agreement for Norway and the agreement for Iceland covers both. So it is both GOVSATCOM, which is based on the space regulation, and the other part is secure connectivity, so IRIS², the new programme, which is indeed based on that regulation. So we have opted for one agreement as we consider that all the elements are very much aligned and therefore justify one agreement with Norway and one agreement with Iceland, but covering both GOVSATCOM and IRIS².
Paolo Borchia
Yes, thank you very much again.
Well, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the political advisors and of course ITRE secretariat. Thank you very much for your contribution, able to enrich this debate. I think that it's positive that we were been able to find a consensus on the, on an inclusive approach with these files. I just, I just would like to inform you that I will take care in cooperation with secretariat to, to be able to finalize the, the iter in a, in a smooth and quick way. As soon, I mean, we'll try to, to conclude the, the procedure if possible before the summer break.
For the rest, I remain at your disposal, but I think that we are on, on the right way for finalizing this, this dossier. Thank you very much again.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And I'd like to thank all the speakers for their contribution and I'd like kindly invite the Commission to make sure that the Parliament is informed at all stages of the negotiation process. A special thanks to our guests for being with us today. Thanks a lot. And now we will switch to item nine, but we've got still 14 minutes left, so it will be the short break before we start, just to be sure that everyone who would like to take a part in in this point will be present at the committee meeting.
So we start at 11:15.
Okay, dear colleagues, we can start. So this is item nine and amendment amending regulation as regards of CO2 emissions performance standard for the new light-duty vehicles and vehicles labeling and reporting directive. This is consideration of draft opinion and we've got our rapporteur Matej Tonin. We've got about 30 minutes, so I immediately give the floor to our rapporteur, Mr. Tonin, will present a draft opinion, two minutes and shadows and then if time permits, catch the eye and the representative of Commission. So Matej, the floor is yours.
Matej Tonin
Dear chair, thank you very much. Dear colleagues, I think I'm convincing already convinced that the automotive industry is super important in the Europe and that so many other sectors depend on the success of automotive industry. So let me briefly just outline the main elements of my opinion. First, I strongly believe that the technological neutrality must become a reality, not just a principle on the paper. Europe should not decide in advance that only one technology pathway is acceptable.
This is why I propose that renewable and low-carbon fuels should count towards compliance already from the entry into force of the regulation rather than only after 2035. I also propose the extending eligibility to all fuels compliant with the renewable energy directive. Second, I believe we must recognize the contribution of the entire automotive value chain. The Commission proposal introduces credits for low-carbon steel and I welcome this, but the Europe's industrial ecosystem is much broader than only steel. This is why I propose extending recognition to other low-carbon materials, including aluminium, glass and plastics.
These sectors are energy-intensive, strategically important and deeply integrated into Europe's automotive competitiveness. And third, I believe we should remain open to a different decarbonization solutions. This is why I propose a new category which is vehicles running exclusively on eligible renewable fuels. In the absence of a proper life-cycle methodology, these vehicles should be recognized within the framework of the regulation as a net-zero provided clear criteria and fulfilled. Fourth, I believe we must better reflect market reality, especially for light commercial vehicles.
This transition is not progressing in the same speed across all segments and countries. For vans and light commercial vehicles, infrastructure challenges, affordability concerns and operational requirements remain particularly significant. This is why I propose that the targets are further lowered. It is an approach that keeps ambition but better reflects economic and technological realities. Fifth, I believe our industry needs flexibility during this transition.
That is why I propose longer averaging periods for compliance. This would better reflect market fluctuation, investment cycles and uneven consumers' demand across member states without changing the long-term direction of the travel.
Sixth, I want to strengthen support for affordable zero-emission mobility. We cannot expect citizens to embrace clean mobility if affordable options are missing. For this reason, I propose strengthening super-credits for small zero-emission vehicles to encourage production and increases consumer choice. Seventh, I believe plug-in hybrids and range extenders still have an important role to play. Prematurely weakening these technologies would not necessarily accelerate decarbonization, but it could weaken European industrial capacity.
This is why I support maintaining the current utility factor and preserving a role for these technologies during a transition. And finally, I believe we need a coherence between the between this regulation and our wider industrial policy. The automotive transition cannot happen in isolation. This is why I propose stronger alignment with the future Industrial Accelerator Act, so that Europe's climate ambition and industrial ambitions move into the same directions. Dear colleagues, thank you very much and I'm looking forward for the discussion.
Elena Sancho Murillo
Thank you. I'm talking instead my colleague Daniela Tard, the shadow rapporteur of this file. Thank you, Chair, colleagues, as S&D shadow rapporteur, I'm tabling amendments to guarantee that the CO2 standards framework remains a key decarbonization and industrial policy tool. This means keeping the 100% reduction target for cars by 2035. Any flexibilities we use must remain limited, not to undermine the effectiveness of the regulatory framework.
Reducing ambition risks undermining certainty for industry, slowing zero-emissions vehicle uptake, and increasing compliance costs for smaller markets. Our amendments are intended to drive Europe's electric future, safeguard European industry, and protect European jobs. Thank you so much.
Paolo Borchia
Yes, thank you Chair, I take the floor on behalf of my colleague Isabella Tovaglieri, shadow rapporteur, allow me to have the floor in Italian. La proposta di revisione del regolamento sulle emissioni di CO2 per i veicoli leggeri è l'ennesimo tentativo di correggere una normativa green che continua a mettere a rischio l'industria automotive europea, milioni di posti di lavoro e la nostra autonomia strategica. La tanto conclamata apertura della Commissione al principio della neutralità tecnologica resta uno slogan, perché siamo passati da un obbligo totale di auto elettrica a solo il 90%, lasciando ai biocarburanti un misero 3%, meno di quanto già oggi disponibile sul mercato.
Altro che neutralità tecnologica, altro che libertà di scelta, l'obiettivo resta sempre lo stesso: imporre l'auto elettrica per decreto. E anche sul fronte delle sanzioni alle case automobilistiche non c'è stato alcun passo avanti. L'introduzione di minime flessibilità di soli tre anni affinché i produttori di auto raggiungano gli obiettivi di riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 non è sufficiente per un settore che sta investendo miliardi nella transizione, mentre il mercato rallenta, la domanda ristagna e la concorrenza cinese penetra sempre di più nel nostro mercato. Come se non bastasse, si vuole introdurre un nuovo sistema di etichettatura per auto e furgoni, aggiungendo altra burocrazia, costi e adempimenti a carico di produttori, imprese e cittadini. Questa proposta non risponde né alle esigenze dell'industria, né alle necessità dei consumatori, né alle sfide del mercato europeo e globale.
È una revisione di facciata che lascia intatto lo sciagurato Green Deal. Concludo, Presidente, come gruppo dei Patrioti non saremo complici di questa farsa e lavoreremo per apportare modifiche sostanziali e concrete, evitando di consegnare il nostro mercato, la nostra industria, il nostro futuro nelle mani della Cina. Grazie mille.
Elena Donazzan
Thank you, Chair. As Ondřej Knotek, our ECR shadow rapporteur, had to leave back and forth to Czechia, I offered him to present the position. First and foremost, he would like to congratulate the rapporteur for this draft opinion, which provides an excellent foundation for further work. Matteo Tonin addresses the main problematic points of the Commission's proposal and sets the right course. The course towards a realistic target for both 2030 and 2035.
The course towards genuine technological neutrality, paving the way for biofuels and e-fuels. The course that will preserve the competitiveness of our automotive industry and freedom of choice for our citizens. But to achieve this, we need to fix not only the CO2 emissions regulation, but the entire framework currently under discussion, and above all, the automotive omnibus and the industrial accelerator. Our shadow rapporteur is working on a set of amendments that will support rapporteur's approach, even though they may differ in some details. In any case, Mr. Knotek looks forward to collaborating on this opinion.
Borys Budka
Mille grazie and now Michael Bloss from the Greens. As a shadow, then it will be the third for catch the eye.
Michael Bloss
No, thank you very much for giving me the floor, Chair, and thank you very much for this debate. You know, citizens, if they go to the fueling stations right now, they're really afraid of very high fuel prices. Above two euros, and this is because we are so dependent on the energy from the outside, so dependent on fossil imports, and we're losing every day a lot of money, billions of billions without actually getting something for it. And with this approach, you are pushing citizens to continue on this direction. Instead of going for electrification, cheaper energy, electromobility, you're pushing them for the ICEs and this is pushing them into higher cost of living, and I think this is not the way to go forward.
And the good thing is that citizens are much more advanced than what you presume in this report, because they are actually buying EVs much more than thought.
We have amazing growth rates, 40% growth rates compared to last year. We see that the uptake of electromobility in Europe is much higher than what the Commission's impact assessment is with regard to a 100% target in 2035. So what is blocking is now politics that kind of try to force them and fight the fight against electromobility. And I tell you what, this is the end of the car industry in Europe because China is attacking big time. And you are creating investment insecurities, means investment is being held back.
So instead of modernization, nothing is happening and this is handing over our industry to the Chinese counterparts and I don't want that. Last problem, with this utility factor, you want to write into law the deception of consumers. It is very clear, a plug-in hybrid is going maybe 30% electric, 70% on ICE. You want to write it into the law it's 80% electric. This is just not the reality.
So this is deception of consumers written into law and this is not possible. We will table to go back to the old legislation of the Commission because this is actually much closer to reality than what you have in mind. Thank you very much.
Sarah KNAFO
Merci Monsieur le Président, je vais parler en français. Chers collègues, Monsieur le rapporteur, avant toute chose, j'aimerais saluer votre travail parce que vous avez ouvert des portes que la Commission tenait fermées : les carburants de synthèse, les hybrides, un début d'assouplissement normatif. C'est donc positif et je vous le dis nettement, nous voterons toute amélioration car nous voulons construire une majorité qui libérera l'automobile. Ceci étant posé, regardons la vérité en face. On ne sauvera pas notre industrie automobile en aménageant les règles qui la tuent.
On la sauvera en les supprimant. On nous avait vendu une idée simple : tout électrique, tout de suite, et le climat sera sauvé et nous serons libres des énergies fossiles. C'était une naïveté et c'était même une faute. Car derrière la voiture électrique, il y a une batterie, et derrière la batterie, il y a la Chine. Une batterie pour laquelle on extrait, on raffine, on fabrique là-bas, en polluant là-bas, pour rouler propre ici.
On croyait se libérer du pétrole, on s'est enchaîné au lithium. On n'a pas supprimé la dépendance, on en a changé. Alors n'interdisons pas le thermique. Électrique, thermique, hybride, carburants nouveaux, nous avons besoin de tout. Varier ses dépendances, voilà l'indépendance.
Le bon sens dirait : ne mettons pas tous nos œufs dans le même panier. Ce bon sens-là, rendons-le à nos peuples, nos peuples qui veulent rester libres de produire, libres de rouler, libres de choisir. Je vous remercie.
Borys Budka
Merci beaucoup. And now it's time for the catch-the-eye procedure and I've got on my list first once again, but in this procedure, Mrs. Elena Sancho Murillo, and then I've got Mrs. Sigrid Friis. So first, second and third.
Elena Sancho Murillo
Thank you so much, I'm going to talk in Spanish now. Muchas gracias, Presidente. La descarbonización del transporte por carretera no es solo una necesidad climática, que también, es una oportunidad y una necesidad industrial para Europa. El sector europeo de la automoción está preparado para liderar esta transición sin renunciar a la competitividad, pero necesita un marco regulatorio que le aporte seguridad, que le impulse a la innovación y que acompañe a la industria en esta transición.
Debemos ser claros, porque la industria de automoción ya lo es. La electrificación es el futuro de los vehículos ligeros y, además, es la mejor vía para garantizar la competitividad de nuestra industria. Esta propuesta da estabilidad a un sector que opera en un contexto económico complejo y que ya ha movilizado inversiones muy significativas para avanzar hacia la movilidad de cero emisiones. Cuestionar ahora este objetivo solo generaría incertidumbre y pondría en riesgo los grandes avances y las grandes inversiones que ya han realizado. Nuestro reto no es reducir la ambición, sino asegurar que la transición sea justa y esté acompañada por las infraestructuras y el apoyo necesario para que Europa siga liderando la movilidad limpia del futuro.
Muchas gracias.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you. I want to be honest with you, what I really like about the current law is it gives a clear direction to the market that the future of road transport is electric. Now we have a proposal to lower that target and then we have to find some sort of open pragmatic way to collaborate on giving the European car industry some short-term relief. But the keyword here is short-term. The EPP position, in my opinion, goes far beyond short-term relief.
With decreased targets combined with many additional flexibilities, it's a political choice to move away from electrification and decarbonization. How does that align with the agreements that we've made here in the ITRE committee to speed up electrification in Europe? Road transport is exactly the kind of sector where we should be moving faster on electrification. The technology is here and the market, the market is also here. Because while we are discussing whether or how to slow down the transition, the market reality outside this house is completely different.
The sales of electric cars are growing rapidly. The past months the sale have increased by around 40% and the direction of travel is very clear. Other regions, China is seeing this, they've seen that the future of cars is electric. They're scaling up technologies and production capacity at a speed that Europe doesn't seem to be matching. If we hesitate now, we're not protecting our industry in the long run.
We will lose investment, jobs and competitiveness. And in the end, I fear we risk up ending with closed factories instead of a stronger European car sector. I think we can all agree that's not what anyone in this room of the ITRE committee should want.
Borys Budka
Thank you. And now Mr. Pellerin Carlon and then Mrs. from Renew, Mrs. Martinez.
Thomas Pellerin-Carlin
Thank you, Chair. I first want to thank the EPP rapporteur Mr. Tonin for the enriching discussions we've been having in in recent days. As ITRE, I think we really need to have a serious discussion and to look at the entire value chain. We want electric cars made in Europe, creating growth, jobs, creating technology sovereignty. We want batteries made in Europe and we want to use European energy.
And as you know, we currently produce only 3% of the oil we consume, while we produce more than 100% of the electricity we consume. And in the last years, in this committee, in the ITRE committee, we have been improving the policy framework all across the value chain. Our colleagues negotiated the Critical Raw Materials Act to make sure that we can mine lithium in Europe, and this is happening now. In the previous mandate, our colleagues negotiated the Net Zero Industry Act to transform that lithium into cathode, anode, battery cells. We are now discussing the battery booster to make sure that we can invest in the battery manufacturing in Europe.
We are also taking part in the implementation of the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation to make sure that we have charging points that are deployed all over Europe. We have reviewed the electricity market design to ensure that those electric cars can consume electricity when the system needs it the most, when there is an oversupply of electricity with dynamic pricing. We are currently negotiating the electricity grids package to make sure that electricity can go where it is most needed, including to electric cars. So all this great work, those six major policies that we have adopted over the last years, were building upon a stable market signal for the electrification of cars. So all this great work achieved by the platform, by the EPP together with Renew and the S&D, is now threatened.
And it is threatened by the proposal to create so many loopholes in the CO2 standard for cars regulation that it would be the end of regulatory predictability. If this report were to become EU law, carmakers could respect EU law while producing zero battery electric car, zero battery electric car. That is simply insane. So I'm urging our EPP ITRE colleagues to, all of them, to engage in this conversation. All of you that are currently negotiating on the electricity grids, all of you that took part in the electricity market design, that took part in the Critical Raw Materials Act, in the Net Zero Industry Act, please engage in this discussion because otherwise if we let the diesel lobby, essentially if we let two companies in Europe destroy everything that we've been working so hard over the last few years, it will be a disaster.
We currently have a comprehensive industrial policy for electrification. We need to improve it, not destroy it.
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
Thanks, Chair. La propuesta en este caso para introducir esa flexibilidad en el objetivo de emisiones de CO2 en el 2035 pasando del 100 al al 90% y permitiendo cubrir ese 10% restante mediante mecanismos de compensación, entendemos que responde a un enfoque pragmático que lo que está haciendo es buscar y compatibilizar la ambición climática con la viabilidad industrial. Esta flexibilización ofrece al sector el margen necesario para gestionar la transición tecnológica, para sostener la inversión y para preservar los puestos de trabajo manteniendo en este caso además la trayectoria hacia la descarbonización y la electrificación. Sí que echamos en falta neutralidad tecnológica y los híbridos. Y simplemente remarcar que la industria europea de automoción se encuentra en un punto de inflexión en estos momentos y que las decisiones regulatorias que adoptemos en el corto plazo van a ser determinantes para su futuro y que la introducción de mecanismos de flexibilidad deben entenderse como una herramienta para facilitar esta transición de una forma eficiente y no como una reducción de la ambición.
Y por lo tanto en este contexto, equilibrio entre ambición climática, entre pragmatismo regulatorio y competitividad industrial como claves para garantizar el futuro del sector en Europa. Eskerrik asko.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now I will give the floor to Mr. Turano from DG CLIMA.
Andrea TURANO
Thank you. Morning. This is a very important legislation for the Commission because of its three objectives. First, the climate objectives. Second, very important, industrial competitiveness objective.
I want to spend a couple of minutes here. There is a global transition towards electric vehicles and zero-emission vehicles that is going on everywhere in the world. In 2025, 25% of the new cars sold globally were electric and the International Energy Agency project one out of two in 2035 to be electric while the sales of the internal combustion engines has peaked already in the past.
Which means that the opportunity for growth of the automotive sector in the future is in the capacity to develop the electric vehicles that will be on demand and that are already on demand. And in order to get there, we need to make sure that the legislation provides a clear long-term signal for the investments. And this is because basically this is what industry needs, this is what industry tells us. It has to be clear where investments needs to go. And this is not only for the vehicle side, but also for the entire value chain, being it the battery value chain, being it the infrastructure value chain.
And this will also contribute to keep and improve the jobs of the future, which otherwise are at risk. Third, the energy security angle. We import in Europe 290 billion euros of oil products, mostly for the transport needs. And this of course in the current geopolitical circumstances exposes Europe not only to security but also to economic issues. And electric vehicles becomes more and more a way to move away from the dependence, a way to avoid curtailing of renewable electricity thanks to improvement and innovation in the bidirectional charging, so to basically increase the share of renewable energy that can be into the energy system.
Now, having said that, we know the challenges of the automotive sector, the Commission has discussed long with them. And in recognition of these challenges, we want to reach the objectives I mentioned thanks to a balanced approach between keeping the long-term certainty for the investments for the full value chain, but also giving some flexibility for industry. Now, we take note that in the opinion there are a number of additional changes to the current legislation, which are also much stronger than in the Commission proposal and they go throughout the timeframe, so as of now until up to post-2035. And it's the cumulative effect of these changes that is likely to determine an outcome that is actually creating a barrier for investment in the zero-emission value chain. Because that's basically a de facto lowering of the target.
If we look at the period 2028 and 2029, only considering the fuel credits, the target goes down basically to 5% and can go even further down in a moment where the market should ramp up. Having said that, just another observation on the issue related to the fuels, which is one of the most debated point. In the Commission proposal we have opened to fuel credits in order to enhance the technology neutrality of the proposal, but we are doing so in full respect of the industrial objective of the Renewable Energy Directive, which is to drive investments into the biofuels that will be needed for the future. So the advanced biofuel. We cannot continue to invest in food-based biofuel, first generation, not only for the sustainability concern, but also because this for cost reason creates a barrier to the development of the new value chain, which is important for the fuel industry.
And in view of the time, I think the last point, because that was mentioned also. In the Commission proposal we decided not to change the so-called utility factor for PHEV in recognition of the fact that we have to be reflecting as much as possible the real performance of cars on the street, and we know that these cars have twice as much emissions as in the laboratory test. So from the Commission side of course we remain available for the to work together with the co-legislators for the next steps of the process and to see the outcome at the end that goes in the right direction with the three objectives that I mentioned at the beginning to be met.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot, and we are just in time, so this is time for the final remarks of our shadow rapporteur, so Maciej, the floor is yours.
Matej Tonin
Thank you very much. It was an interesting debate. I'm fully aware that the future is electric. But we need a realistic transition. Now, automotive industry in Europe is in decline.
Electric vehicles are more or less from China. So China is taking the primat. If we continue on the current path, which means that we will destroy the European automotive industry and that we will be flooded with the Chinese electric vehicles. I don't like this future. So that's why we have to way we have to find a compromise that everybody can survive, that the European automotive industry can survive, that the technology which is here can be used in a decent, green way, responsible way, that automotive industry has time to restructure itself.
That's the main point. And we should skip ideological debates, what you are for and what you are against, but we should focus on data and we should focus on the reality on the ground. If we will work in that way, then I think we can save the automotive industry and that even in the future we will have champions and that we will use cars made in EU. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. I do believe that we will find a compromise as you mentioned, and I just want to notify that deadline for amendments is 9th of June at 12:00. So thanks a lot for this item, and now we will have the break till the till the 2:30 today. Thanks a lot.
Bonjour à tous. Nous allons commencer. Je vous souhaite la bienvenue à cette réunion de la commission ITRE.
I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed. I would also like to remind you to use your microphones when speaking. Now, we will move on to the first item on our agenda, which is the presentation of the draft report on the European Chips Act. I would like to invite the rapporteur, Mr. Dan Nica, to present his report.
Dan Nica
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to present this draft report on the European Chips Act. As you know, semiconductors are essential for our economy and our society. They are used in everything from smartphones to cars to medical devices. However, Europe is currently dependent on other regions for its supply of semiconductors.
This dependence has been highlighted by the recent global shortage of chips. The European Chips Act aims to address this dependence by strengthening Europe's semiconductor ecosystem. It will do this by investing in research and development, supporting the construction of new manufacturing facilities, and improving coordination between member states. My report focuses on several key areas. First, we need to ensure that the European Chips Act is properly funded.
The Commission has proposed a budget of 43 billion euros, but we believe that more may be needed. Second, we need to make sure that the benefits of the European Chips Act are shared across all member states. We don't want to see a situation where only a few countries benefit from this investment. Third, we need to ensure that the European Chips Act is consistent with our environmental and social goals. We need to make sure that the production of semiconductors is sustainable and that workers' rights are protected.
I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions on this draft report. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nica, for your presentation. I will now open the floor for discussion. Are there any speakers who would like to take the floor? I see several hands raised. I will start with Mr. Christian Ehler.
Dan Nica
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on this report. The European Chips Act is a very important piece of legislation, and it is crucial that we get it right. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to ensure that the Act is properly funded. We also need to make sure that the investment is targeted at the right areas.
We should focus on areas where Europe has a competitive advantage, such as research and development and high-end manufacturing. I also agree that we need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are shared across all member states. We should encourage cooperation between member states and support the development of regional semiconductor clusters. Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of international cooperation. The semiconductor industry is a global industry, and we need to work with our partners around the world to ensure a stable and secure supply of chips.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ehler. I will now give the floor to Ms. Martina Dlabajová.
Dan Nica
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his report. I think it is a very good starting point for our discussions. I would like to focus on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in the semiconductor ecosystem. SMEs are often the drivers of innovation, and they need to be properly supported by the European Chips Act.
We should make sure that SMEs have access to funding and that they can participate in research and development projects. We should also simplify the administrative procedures for SMEs so that they can easily access the benefits of the Act. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Dlabajová. I will now give the floor to Mr. Henrike Hahn.
Henrike Hahn
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report. I think it is very important that we address the environmental and social aspects of the semiconductor industry. The production of semiconductors is very energy-intensive and uses a lot of water and chemicals. We need to make sure that the European Chips Act encourages the development of more sustainable production methods.
We should also ensure that the Act promotes the circular economy by encouraging the recycling and reuse of semiconductors. Finally, we need to make sure that the Act protects workers' rights and promotes fair working conditions in the semiconductor industry. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.