Committee on Transport and Tourism 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
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMark Nicklas
Now, of course, I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the discussions on the CO2 standards on cars and vans, but the Commission proposal has less than 100% battery electric vehicles, which means that we will need to have a look also at the brake particle emission limits for 2035. The simplest thing would be to empower the Commission based on the data available in a report to review the limits for 2035. The point on the electric door handles, we're fully aware of the issue and the safety risks attached to that, but I don't think that's appropriate for a simplification omnibus because it is actually an additional requirement for the manufacturers.
We are working on it in the context of the United Nations to have a harmonized regulation to ensure that these vehicles are safe and people get out of the vehicles, but I don't think it's an appropriate measure for the omnibus. Then there were some interested MEPs in something similar to the M1E category for light commercial vehicles.
It's not something we have assessed in the Commission, so it didn't come out of the stakeholder consultation. But if there are specific data or justifications why this is needed, it's of course something we could also look openly. Similarly for the M1e category, we have defined it on length because this is a very simple criterion and there's a clear correlation between the length and affordability of the vehicles.
But there might be also additional criteria to have a combination of even more targeted category of small affordable EVs. And when it comes to the timeline of Euro 7 for heavy-duty vehicles, it was the co-legislators who have established the application dates. And I'm not sure what are new elements on the market that would justify a substantial postponement of the timeline.
It would mean definitely a delay of the positive environmental impact of the Euro 7 regulation and it's not necessarily direct reduction of any administrative costs. And that brings me then to the topic that came up several times, the utility factor. This in our view is not a topic for the automotive omnibus because it is not a simplification, it doesn't reduce any administrative costs, but it is about how you consider plug-in hybrids under the CO2 standards.
So there are more appropriate fora to deal with that. And also from a legal perspective, the utility factor is established in implementing acts, so it is very doubtful legally how an omnibus regulation could postpone or amend or whatever do with these implementing acts.
And then in terms of the evidence and unfortunately in spite of the increase of charging infrastructure I agree one would expect a higher utilization in electric mode but unfortunately this is not what the data shows. The available data shows that the current utility factor is still quite far from the real world CO2 emissions of the plug-in hybrids on the road and with the 2027 utility factor we close the gap and it will reflect the real world emissions. Now of course I also would see benefits of a regular monitoring of these real world emissions because of course we hope that this will change with a larger range of the plug-in hybrids and with more and more charging but we are not there.
How frequent such changes should be, I think there you also need to take into account the balance of planning certainty, investment certainty for the manufacturers and the frequency of updates to reflect real-world emissions. But overall, I really welcome that throughout the comments from rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs, there was the clear wish to deliver on this simplification automotive omnibus and we are looking forward to a smooth cooperation between the institutions.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the co-rapporteurs, if they want, they have one minute each for a short reflection. We start with Michael Bloss.
Michael Bloss
Yeah, thank you very much.
So, I'm really looking forward to a good collaboration. I hope we can do this swiftly and focus on simplification. Commission just now said on the utility factor that's not part of simplification and I tend to agree. And I also, I would really ask some questions on some of the statements. Because when we are in favor of a level playing field and of realism, then that means that a utility factor should really show what is the reality of a plug-in electric drive and ICE drive, fossil driving.
And currently, it's in the law that a plug-in hybrid drives 80% electric. And we know for a fact from the data that it actually only goes maybe around 30%. So there's 50% difference. And now I don't really get that you say, okay, now we just need to pretend and write into law that it's always 80% and we don't do it actually according to reality. That's for me, you know, tilting the numbers.
And in the automotive industry, playing with numbers, we have some history in that and maybe we shouldn't go down that road again. And the other thing is that this is also for consumers a deception because a consumer believes that this will drive 80% electric, but in reality, if you buy a plug-in hybrid, the fossil fuel use is much higher. Five times higher. That means more costs.
So if you don't want to discriminate against technology, then also you need to also just be realistic of what they are. And if companies then are able to produce cars that drive 80% electric, I have zero problem to acknowledge that they drive 80% electric. That's kind of what, you know, that's what technology neutrality is about.
But let's not pretend they do when they do not. That's what I say. And I think if we could, you know, let's do this fast, but if we are entangled into the whole utility factor debate, this is very much connected to the CO2 in cars because the utility factor has an impact of how a car is measured in the fleet. So then it has to go in synchronization and this will complicate the process a lot.
Andreas Schwab
Well, I want to be very short. I think it has been useful to listen to the Commission today and to exchange. I think realism matters. We have a problem with the uptake of cars in the market because those people that we are thinking about, they are rather not buying a new car, but they are normally generally buying rather second-hand cars.
And therefore we have really to understand the market logics and to adapt our climate goals to the market logics. But I consider the argument that has been just done by one of the co-rapporteurs is striking, that for sure the utility factor is placed here because the CO2 emission report will not make it easy to be adapting to that willingness in the CO2 emission regulation. And therefore we could do it here much faster, but for sure it has to correspond to real achievements and not only to a presumed number.
So I think we can work a lot on issues that can bring us together. In the end, Mr. Chairman, there will be for sure nonetheless a vote and I hope that we can make that a good success. Thank you very much.
Merja Kyllönen
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, after listening all the speeches, I got the feeling that I'm a Santa Claus without Christmas presents for the children, but I still try to fix something up.
After seeing more than 200 electric vehicles transported from towing in Finnish Lapland during a single week last winter when temperature dropped to minus 37 and electric buses frozen by the roadside, I hope we will soon see testing conditions that truly reflect both extreme heat and extreme cold, because that will be the reality in the in the EU level. It will be not easy to find solutions. I I still think that we we can find them if we will. And I try to focus moving toward practical solutions which service the whole EU level, not only partly different different areas, the whole EU, whole customer sector and the whole competitiveness of the of the industrial part.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, so I would like to thank all the co-rapporteurs, the shadows, the Commission for this interesting change of view and I leave the floor to my colleague.
Maria Grapini
Thank you, dear colleagues, thank you for everyone for this exchange of view.
Thank you, Commission. I hope we will have finally one optimal rapport after amendment. Informing members that the deadline for amendment is set to 9 June at 15:00 afternoon. Thank you very much.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much, dear colleagues, for this rich exchange. We have come to the end of our meeting after a three minutes... No. This is not the right one. I'm sorry.
Yes. Um. Yeah, but it's wrong. Three minutes break now. We came to the end.
It's um wrong written. So um what I would like to say is that we will have no other business. The date of next joint ENVI, IMCO and TRAN meeting needs to be confirmed. So thank you so much. We continue with the TRAN meeting after three minutes.
Thank you.
Dear colleagues, let's move on the proposal to amendment directive 92/6 as regards the installation and use of speed limitation devices, which I understand is related to the automotive omnibus that we just discussed.
I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for 10 June at 6 o'clock in the afternoon. Now we can move to the discussion. I will give the floor to Mrs. Kyllönen for three minutes. Mrs. Kyllönen, you have the floor.
Merja Kyllönen
Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, report on the proposal amending the miraculous directive 92/6/EC as regards exempting certain category N2 electric vehicles from the requirement to install and use speed limitation devices. This is a targeted and proportionate amendment that responds to technological developments in the road transport sector and supports the transition towards cleaner mobility.
The current legislation requires vehicles within the scope of the directive to be equipped with speed limitation devices. While this framework has served important road safety objectives for many years, it was designed at the time when electric commercial vehicles did not exist in the form we know today.
And as a result, certain N2 category electric vehicles are currently subject to requirements that may no longer be fully justified in light of their technical characteristics and intended use. The Commission's proposal seeks to address this issue by introducing a limited exemption for specific N2 electric vehicles. The aim is to remove an unnecessary regulatory burden while maintaining a high level of road safety.
As rapporteur, I welcome this proposal because it strikes an appropriate balance between safety, innovation, and competitiveness. And first, road safety remains our primary concern. Any exemption must be carefully defined and supported by evidence demonstrating that it does not create additional risk for other road users. The proposed amendment is narrow in scope and applies only to specific category of vehicles whose operational characteristics differ from those of conventional heavy commercial vehicles.
Second, this proposal contributes to the broader objective of accelerating the deployment of zero-emission vehicles across Europe. This decarbonisation of road transport is one of the key challenges facing the European Union. Regulatory frameworks should facilitate rather than unintentionally hinder the uptake of innovative and sustainable technologies. And third, the proposal supports the competitiveness of European industry. Manufacturers investing in electric commercial vehicles need a regulatory environment that reflects technological realities and avoids unnecessary costs of administrative obstacles.
Simplifying requirements where they no longer serve their original purpose is an important part of better regulation, and at the same time, Parliament underlines that any regulatory adaptation must preserve legal clarity, ensure consistent implementation across Member States, and maintain citizens' confidence in the Union's commitment to road safety. Dear colleagues, this proposal demonstrates that European legislation can evolve alongside technological processes by updating outdate requirements while maintaining robust safety standards, we can support innovation, strengthen our industrial base, and advance our climate objectives.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much. So now I'll give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs, EPP, Mr. Gieseke. Please, you have the floor.
Jens Gieseke
Thank you very much, Chair, and I will speak in German.
Zunächst mein Dank an die Berichterstatterin Frau Kyllönen für ihren pragmatischen Ansatz, den unterstützen wir sehr. Und wir unterstützen auch den Vorschlag der Kommission, leichte Elektrofahrzeuge von der Pflicht zum Einbau eines Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzers auszunehmen. Das ist in der Praxis ein großes Ärgernis. Diese Änderung ist sinnvoll, weil elektrische Transporter heute oft nur deshalb in eine höhere Fahrzeugklasse fallen, weil ihre Batterien zusätzliches Gewicht mit sich bringen. In der Praxis werden sie jedoch genauso eingesetzt wie vergleichbare Transporter mit Verbrennungsmotor.
Sie haben die gleiche Nutzlast und erfüllen dieselben Aufgaben. Die bisherigen Vorschriften führen zu zusätzlichen Kosten und mehr Bürokratie.
Davon betroffen sind insbesondere kleine und mittlere Unternehmen, die solche Fahrzeuge tatsächlich nutzen und das täglich. Und genau diesem Schutz der kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen haben wir uns verschrieben. Mit der vorgeschlagenen Ausnahme werden elektrische Transporter den vergleichbaren Fahrzeugen mit Verbrennungsmotor gleichgesetzt. Das ist eine sachgerechte Anpassung, die den Einsatz emissionsarmer Nutzfahrzeuge verbessert, ohne die Sicherheit auf unseren Straßen zu beeinträchtigen. Insofern freuen wir uns auf die Fortsetzung der konstruktiven Zusammenarbeit mit der Berichterstatterin und den Schattenberichterstattern.
Vielen Dank.
Vivien Costanzo
Ich bin ja froh, je später der Nachmittag, umso, würde ich sagen, vereinender die Redebeiträge. Vielleicht sollten wir uns das zunutze machen. Nein, aber ich habe ja eben schon einiges dazu gesagt und würde es deshalb kurz machen. Grundsätzlich bin ich skeptisch, dass Sicherheitsfunktionen das zentrale Hindernis für die Einführung elektrischer Transporter sind.
Là, je soutiens la ligne de la Commission de prévoir ici cette exception ciblée. L'important est toutefois la limitation de l'exception. Elle ne devrait s'appliquer qu'aux véhicules pour lesquels le poids supplémentaire est effectivement dû à la batterie. Il ne faut donc pas d'abaissement forfaitaire des exigences de sécurité, et là je suis d'accord avec vous, mais une adaptation proportionnée et précise à la réalité de l'électromobilité. Et c'est précisément cette approche équilibrée que j'espère aussi pour l'ensemble de l'Omnibus.
Merci.
Benoit Cassart
Oui, merci Mme la Présidente.
Valérie Devaux, au nom de qui je parle, tient à remercier la Commission pour cette proposition qui s'inscrit pleinement dans notre démarche de simplification et qui fait preuve de bon sens en exemptant certains véhicules de la catégorie N2 de l'obligation d'être équipés d'un limiteur de vitesse.
Cette mesure est de nature à faciliter la mise sur le marché des modèles concernés. Dès lors, à l'instar de la rapporteuse Valérie Devaux, ne déposera aucun amendement à la proposition de la Commission. Merci beaucoup.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much for Greens, Mr. Sinkevičius. No, is no, δεν είναι εδώ. So, there is nobody here, so we continue for the European Commission, Mr. Mark Nicholas, Head of Unit, DG GROW. Thank you.
Mark Nicklas
Thank you, Chair. There is not much to say as I don't want to duplicate what the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs said. We had already the discussion also in the Omnibus Regulation on the previous point. So just to, in a way, explain the Omnibus Regulation, there we make this exemption in the General Safety Regulation, that is to allow such vehicles to be put on the market without a speed limiter. But we also need them to be used on the roads without a speed limiter.
And therefore we have this complementary Omnibus Directive. And we welcome very much the support from the various groups on our proposal.
Thank you so much.
Elena Kountoura
So I give the floor to the rapporteur Mrs. Kyllönen for two minutes to conclude the debate.
Merja Kyllönen
Thank you, dear Madam Chair. I'm not misuse your time. I just say that I hope that whole the package could be that easy as this seems to be. But I think it won't be as miraculous as I can hope. But we will find the solutions.
I have had already negotiations with my co-rapporteurs and we will find solution. It might take a little time, not long, but more than one or two days. So, and it depends how many other amendments there are coming for the whole package. But it was very nice to hear that Mr. Cassart said that my colleague is not sending any kind of amendments to this proposal.
So we'll see. We'll see. Thank you. Thanks to you all.
Elena Kountoura
We continue. Thank you so much. And now we go to the next point, which is the presentation of a study on pricing of e-charging for electric cars and on-shore power supply in ports.
The study was commissioned by the Policy Department on behalf of the TRAN coordinators. So I'm happy to welcome Harm Wagen and Edwin Bestebreurtje. Did I? Okay, thank you. Harm Wagen is managing partner of FIER and Edwin Bestebreurtje is partner and senior consultant of FIER.
After the presentation, you will be given the floor to reply to questions from members. So, the floor is yours, Mr. Veggen.
Harm VEGGEN
Yes. Dear TRAN Committee, dear chair of the TRAN Committee, let me first thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our study results on pricing for EV electric vehicle charging and on pricing for the onshore power supply for ships. So, my name is Harm Veggen, I'm managing partner and founder of Fier Sustainable Mobility. My colleague Edwin Westerbridge is joining me here today.
We did the study together with Sustainable Ships, who is much more focusing on the OPS side. The next slide, please.
Can I push myself or do I have to announce next slide?
Elena Kountoura
Announce next slide. The only thing I would like to know is how long is your presentation? Are you going to speak both?
Harm VEGGEN
We'll try that. The first question that we studied are the following. So first, is the pricing transparent? Is it a transparent market? Is the pricing itself transparent?
Is it a reasonable pricing? Is it reasonable costs which are charged? And is it affordable? Is it stimulating the uptake of electrification, both in ports and on the road? And I can already mention, next slide please, that the answer on those questions is no.
Not always, but in a large number of cases it's no. Next slide please. I will first dive into the onshore power supply in the EU. Next slide. This is a quite overseeable market, if you can call it a market.
There are the terminal operators, the port authorities, there is the onshore power supply operator, and that's mainly the actors, and it's mainly often also the same actor who is charging for the electricity towards the shipping company.
What we saw there is that a large number of ports, so the ones that we studied, so 96 of the ports don't make their prices public. And the ones who do, so it's the minority, they have different price structures. Some are just charging per kilowatt hour, others are charging a sort of fixed rate per call or per time-based, so the time of use in combination with per kilowatt hour. That makes it less comparable. But the question is what is comparable because the shipping company does not have the choice anyhow to choose between different ports.
Of course he can say I go to Antwerp instead to Rotterdam, but that's about it and the price is a part of this total fee he has to pay. So we call it a monopoly-like situation.
Next slide please. If we look at the prices, then we see first we see that the kilowatt hour prices for electricity for onshore power supply range between 10, 11 and 32 cents per kilowatt hour. That's for mainly that's only for the electricity, so on top of this comes a time-based or call-based charges.
Where onboard power supply is somewhere in the mid of that range, so based on fuel, on oil, on diesel, so between 15 and 20 cents per kilowatt-hour what it costs to charge, to generate electricity. Still it's not completely comparable because we're missing components in the OPS side which need to be calculated back into the OPS prices per kilowatt-hour. The good news is of course that with the ETS, with the FuelEU regulations, gradually prices will go up and will go substantially go up so that if prices stay in that ballpark figure like the OPS prices currently, there will be a competitive situation where there will be a tendency to do more onshore power supply based usage of electricity.
But, next slide please. Because it's a very it's not really a market. So there is not really choice.
It's important that the Parliament, the European Commission really set guidelines, regulations to be able to track how that market develops. It's a, it's a very early stage. So it's not really time now to conclude if it's going well or going not going well. It needs to be followed, it needs to be really closely followed. But to compare effective prices, scenarios are very much required.
So a big shipping line, large container ships being a long time at berth may have per kilowatt hour a much lower price than a small ship that's only short there, has a high one-time fee included in the price, has less negotiation power. So those scenarios need to be clear and need to be followed.
That's on the side of the user, to be fair towards the user. But also towards the operator, it's important that the costs to realize the investments are overseeable. So especially grid investments are very high, which is a hurdle to further invest. And on the other side, utilization is important, because there are lots of criteria where the shipping company decides on to use OPS or to use on-board power generation. It's important to also set obligatory measures.
Next slide, please. Then on the public EV charging in the EU, there's of course much more evidence. It's much more already a mature market. Please next slide. Why is this important?
So if you look at the business case for drivers, for users of electric cars, then charging can make and break the business case, and it does. So this is an example for Germany. It's more or less the same pattern all over Europe. Of course, the absolute values are different, but with home charging, it's often already a positive business case, four years time and 25,000 kilometers a year.
For the on average public AC charging, overnight charging prices, it's a little bit more expensive, but still overseeable. And then if you come to the regions or areas or cities or whatever where the prices are high, then the business case is killed. And this goes up to 8,000, 9,500 euro difference compared to, for example, home charging. Next slide, please. But it's not only the price, it's also what the consumer and the user see.
So they don't see the price often in advance. In a number of cases, often they do see in advance, but in a number of cases, very often they don't see it. Or they don't see the structure, so they don't see what they pay for. So per time, occupancy fees, parking fees. So they have a complete patchwork of things that they don't see in advance.
And then the same charger with two or three different cards can lead to different prices. Receipts are often just not itemized. Just price per kilowatt, where all those things are in it, if he gets the price per kilowatt. So he cannot compare. So he doesn't know what he paid for and he cannot compare if he actually pays for what he was promised to pay.
And if he's unhappy, it's very complicated to file a complaint, to file a claim.
Next slide please. This is supported by first by almost all consumer surveys consumer studies. In the desk research we saw that. Yesterday also the European Commission mentioned in one of the workshops the complaints for the improvement areas for AFIR and that was what I understood is also the majority over 800 of the comments were towards the the transparency a lack of transparency. So it the evidence is broad.
Next slide, please. It's not strange that it's complex, because it's a complex market. You have the site owner, you have the charge point operator, the CPO, you have the roaming, the international roaming provider, and you have the mobility service provider. In a number of cases, you still need it. If you're not able to pay ad hoc, you will need the MSP, but also as a company, if you want one bill from one actor.
And then the question, of course, is: do all these actors charge fair prices?
That's a serious issue, but it's not one actor where you can point to. So often it's pointed towards the MSP asking outrageous prices. That's not fair, because it's the CPO adding costs on top. It's all the actors who want to reduce risk and want to reduce complexity. You see also the number of CPOs in Europe, you see the MSPs.
The picture that you see is only for the Netherlands, so this is what an end user sees in number of cards that he can use. And he can always make combinations of a charger and a card. So you can imagine how many combinations there are. Next slide please.
This one I will explain the last slide. Okay, next one. This is an average of charging prices over six in six European countries. So not in 27 member states. We'll come back to that next slide.
But if we look at oh sorry, no, one back. So the if you look at the home chargers it's really the by far the cheapest option. And then if you look there are different options like subscription models for CPOs, there are ad hoc there's ad hoc pricing and there is MSP the roaming providers prices.
And you see that that ranges, so ad hoc is normally more or less double from the home charging prices, and the MSP prices go well beyond that. You see the numbers. It is not about these numbers as such. It's about the spread behind this. If you look at the spread in prices, we see that for the, if we look on the charger level throughout Europe, 27 member states, if you look at the range between what the lowest price is and what the highest price on a specific charger is, that can be, in the majority of cases, between the lowest price and 40 cent more, or even 85 cents per kilowatt more.
So that's a very big spread. That's three times the price. There are extremes of more than four times, five times the price of the lowest price at the charger. We have that evidence based on big data. We can go see that all in the report.
So I would like to go to the next slide. Next one please. This one I explained just now. So what is important in the in the future policy measures in the in the AFIR revision? Important is that the there is always for the consumer a pre-session all-in price, not the exact price, but the calculation of that price.
What is in it? What can he expect as a final price based on the kilowatts that he's going to charge? He has to know is there an occupancy fee? Is there yes or no an occupancy fee? Here I have a side remark, that's really something that we see, what we really were astonished about, is that sometimes the charge point operator does not charge occupancy fees, but the MSP might charge this on top, although he's not the operator.
So important point, we see cost categories not used by the CPO, but the MSP puts on top.
Side-by-side comparison, ad hoc and MSP prices, obligatory, always. MSPs don't like it, but it's very important. Clear comparison tools. The national access points and the common European access point, they can solve a lot on this. But it's also important that it goes beyond ad hoc prices, so that the user can really compare prices.
Itemized receipt after the charging, very important. Monitor persisting outliers and take action when the prices are really big spreads, are really extreme. Better coordination, that also national consumer competition authorities can enforce the AFIR better. Easier complaints, because it's a big threshold for a very small amount per charge, actually, where the end user has to file a complaint for. So it has to be very crystal clear and very easy.
Regular reporting towards the authorities to be able to scrutinize the price development. And then my last slide, please. Then our fundamental question to you is, it's important to think about, is this enough? So with AFIR we see it has gone a long way.
It's really a big improvement already what happened in the last years. It can improve further, but is this enough? The question is, with such a complicated market, is this a market? Is there, like in urban areas, where you see that there is no choice for the consumer and you cannot put ten chargers of different brands next to each other, is this enough? We see some cities do a very good job on, for example, having excellent concessions and driving price down, making very clear transparency rules.
This is an important part where we think that there should be much more focus on guiding cities in doing the right concessions, because that's one of the few instruments we have to regulate really that, and to regulate that market.
We have to take in mind that those cities, those points operate like local monopolies. National access point and common European access points already mentioned can solve a lot of issues, but of course it's rather slow, which is logical with 27 member states, and it's technologically complex. It's good to understand that fast charging, DC, highway, transit charging is a completely different market. It starts to be much more competitive, much more competition between chargers and it starts to go towards the situation of the petrol market. So there we see quite good developments.
And then a fundamental question to you: is it fair that an EV driver without possibility to charge at home pays at least double for his electricity to charge than somebody who can charge at home? This is something what I want you to take home and to think about: is this fair and is this something we can regulate or is it a fundamental flaw in the market organization that we together all decided?
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much.
Now I give the floor to the coordinators EPP Mr. Gieseke.
Jens Gieseke
Thank you very much. So it's all about price transparency. So I wonder what this study costs the European taxpayer. This would be my first question and I hope I get an answer. To be quite honest we have limited options really to do something on the market.
Our tools are legislation. We can have a revision of the AFIR earlier. That would be one option that we can of course we can the Commission make moves there. What would be your top priorities for us in this revision if it goes to enforcement, complaints you mentioned? So what should we do if we have the revision earlier?
What is your recommendation to us? And then there was quite quite interesting last slide and this this you you catched my attention at least. Driver without home charging face higher costs, is this fair? You know, these people, they invest, and I'm one of those investors, and I have a solar on my rooftop, and of course I have a better price, and this might bring me to the solution to buy an electric car, which all the guys in this house want.
So really this is the way forward. But now you say this is not fair. So if you come with a solution to in a way I have to share the the lower price with others, then I will abstain and not go in the electrification. So I want your smart solution on that one please. Thank you.
Harm VEGGEN
First, the study the study cost sixty thousand euros, so that's about the realization of ten chargers in in the public domain. So that's I think it's very competitive. And that's also and that's also because we we we are running for the European Commission the European Alternative Fuels Observatory, so that gives us a ton of data very quickly.
Elena Kountoura
Please write down the questions so you can answer all together when the colleagues were finished. For S&D, Mr. Danielsson.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you. And please in your answer reflect that we need to keep Mr. Gieseke's prices down so he stops insisting on the plug-in hybrids and can go electric and join the future. Precisely, we don't need to freeze utility factor. But, to come to, firstly thank you for the report and also for the presentation.
I think it makes, I mean, a quite clear case for price transparency that we actually need to implement and enforce AFIR, but also perhaps to update and, and strengthen some part of the rules. If you, I mean, you make the case that there is some surcharges that are not there for objective reasons. When rectifying this, how do you, how do you do that at the same time taking into consideration that some of the companies also have issues of underutilization and they have problems getting profitable? So I mean, you can have both things at the same time. You can have a price at the end consumers that doesn't perhaps all the time reflect underlying cost for that specific charging, but also you have some of the market players that have problems with profitability.
Then my, my real question, second question is the same as, as Mr. Gieseke. I mean, when we get the AFIR regulation on the table, what, what are the key demands?
So if we say today it provides as you say visibility, but in the end then to change the actual market structure what needs to be done in terms of regulation in the European level? And yeah, in general, but then also perhaps to make it possible, okay, I understand you can have an application, you can have an you can pay some monthly fee, you can be be happy within a system, but so the system also works for someone that just wants to charge with a credit card.
Merja Kyllönen
Thank you, Madam Chair. Strongest are still here. Okay. It's, thanks for this. I have a couple of questions and, and remarks, because I have worked lots with maritime industry and, and ports also.
And I think that there's fundamental differences between electricity supply to road vehicles and to maritime vessels. And what was inside my mind is that was there consultation with ports about this case or was it only shipowners? I just got the little bit feeling that more shipowners listening.
It's the complexity of this thing that how we compare or do the direct comparability of both both sectors, it's not it's not easy. But I think when we when we check out the whole system, the cost structures and the existing operable area where we are, the significant differences exist across also the ports and Member States due to the diverging energy prices, different infra costs and subsidies, of course.
And these differences are structural and should be recognized widely. And also the seasonality and winter conditions, surprisingly, I'm always speaking about the winter conditions. For example, for cruises in Northern Europe significantly impact pricing and the seasonal effect in wide transparency on seasonal definition and impact is very essential in this case.
And also the reassessment of kind of natural monopoly when we are mentioning OPS as a natural monopoly should be reconsidered as ships retain choice between ports and terminals. And OPS pricing will be part of the commercial strategy of the terminals and the ports. And also the question of that will the user pay or who will pay the bill in this market?
And I think it's it's not so easy. Maybe I'm so difficult because my my former assistant works works with maritime sector and this this area but I I think it's the strategic understanding and the wide perspective it's a it's not easy. Thank you.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much. We don't have any more coordinators. I give the floor to Mrs. Costanzo.
Vivien Costanzo
Thank you. Yeah, in contrast to you, Jens, I don't have a possibility to charge at home, but I'm driving a fully electric car and I'm living in a city center. So I know these problems and I know quite well what you presented right now. But I also know there's the access is not the problem. It's more or less the transparency and to understand the different ways of pricing.
And you know, I'm registered in once, I'm paying 39 cents, and then I forget my card and then I have to pay 89 cents. This is something you cannot explain to the consumer.
And this is the big problem. And that's why my question would pick up your point and would just be what measures can ensure that this public charging can be truly transparent for the consumer? Because for me it was quite hard to convince the OEM to sell me the car. Because they said you don't have access to home charging, you're living in a city center, you're driving a lot. How do you want to get along in your daily life with it?
And I can tell you it's possible, it's working, but it could be much easier for the people.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much. So Mr. Veggen, you have six minutes to answer all the questions. Thank you, the floor is yours.
Harm VEGGEN
Yeah, my colleague will start with the with the most important points, the actions to Mr. Gieseke's question.
Yes, I'm not sure. In the report, we already give some recommendations on what could be changed on the AFIR. And one of the first points that we are struggling with a lot is that for the consumer, it's at the moment totally intransparent what he has to pay when he starts the session and what at the end is on the invoice. For AC charging, it's totally different than for DC charging.
At AC charging, all these elements are so many that it's not transparent for the consumer at all. So what we suggest first is that the same regulation or the same rules will be for AC charging below 50 kilowatts comparable to the DC charging above 50 kilowatts. Because there in the AFIR there is already that it's maximum three elements which can have the part of the price. And in AC charging that's not one of the things. So that's an important element that can be implemented as soon as possible we think.
And the other is also, I'm not sure how to organize that, but the information that you get upfront must be 100% comparable with your invoice.
And that's also what we see a lot of MSPs, CPOs are lacking that element. So what you see in the app when you start a session is not comparable what you get at the invoice at the end of the month or on that same session. So the elements are not exactly the same. So those are two things that helps a lot with transparency. And if you organize that, there will be also more competition because then with your example, that doesn't happen anymore.
What we see now is due to this, that when you start a session with the wrong app or card, you have the risk that you pay like three or four times more than when you take the right card. And that is in our opinion, it's not transparent, but that's also unreasonable.
And therefore I think it's not comparable then anymore with home charging and double the price for that kind of charging, but it's sometimes even eight times more is what we saw.
Okay, I think that also to add to this is that enforcing strongly what's already in the AFIR, making it unambiguous, clear to what is required in it and supporting countries to enforce, that's a very important point. Just also to add to the remark of Mr. Danielsson about the underutilization, you're speaking about CPOs. The problem that we see is more on the price on the EMSP, the mobility service provider level.
It doesn't mean that it's caused by the mobility service provider, it's also often caused by the CPOs in the pricing towards MSPs. But it's not so much CPO, but more on the pricing on top. Mr. Gieseke, with Tesla, you and I are charging for 15 cents, not for 25, but that's a side remark.
The, no, and I think the, looking at the, the question also about charging in the city for Mrs. Constanzo is that if you are living in a city, you have solved the problem that you know where to charge and you have your fixed provider, then you're already out of the very difficult zone. Yes, I know. And there are so many scenarios where you're not in that situation, if you charge somewhere else. So, and you are probably lucky that you are in a region where the concession is already quite good. There are many regions, I have a nice map also in the report, about differences in prices between cities.
For example in the Netherlands, that's outrageous the difference depending on the quality of the concession. Coming back, very important action point to strengthen the support to cities for the for the concessions. Yeah, then the ports. So you want to answer this one?
Yeah, for Mrs. Kyllönen on the ports, what we saw is exactly what you say that we say it's maybe not even a market.
We did consult ports itself and what you saw is that we have figures from some of the ports, but figures from not a lot of ports because it's really starting. OPS uptake will happen in the next couple of years. It's a business-to-business market and it's also still very internal. So the ship owner a lot of time is the same company as the OPS owner. So investments are high.
It's different per country how many subsidies there are, exactly what you say. What we described here is that currently the price of OPS what we could find, there is not a clear system, but what we could find and calculate, it's reasonable compared to if the ship has to provide energy by itself.
But due to the fact that in future on the ship itself it will be more expensive, we hope that the market of OPS will be by then not much more expensive as now. But of course the investment cost needs to be in the calculations. But there is not a real regulation at the moment related to the price system on that.
And maybe just what you mentioned about the complexity, you're very right. That's why we suggested to work with scenarios. You mentioned something about cruise ships in the northern part of Europe, mentioned different scenarios.
It's important to look into those scenarios and then to follow what's happening. It's a quite a small market. It's easier to monitor, especially when you compare it with EV charging for cars. So yes, it's complex. It's a new starting market.
It's important to follow it and to see what is happening. At the moment, it's not, we don't say that it's that ports are not doing the right thing. We only say there are a number of risk factors to look into.
And you can only look into it when you monitor it. And then you have to look at scenarios like small ships, big shipping companies, big negotiation power, small negotiation power, or fundamental costs like electricity cost or grid connection or capacity rates, what sometimes in some countries like in Norway, the Nordic countries, I don't know for Finland, I don't know, but you see there are different price elements. And this should be in those scenarios.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you so much for this very interesting presentation. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of our meeting. Please note that our next meeting will take place June 23rd. Many thanks to all participants, interpreters, users and technicians. I wish you all a very nice evening.
Speaker 31
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I would like to ask you to take your seats so that we can start. start our meeting. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
The agenda has been distributed. Are there any comments on the agenda? I see no comments. The agenda is adopted. The minutes of the meeting of the 22nd and 23rd of January have been distributed.
Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments. The minutes are adopted. I would like to inform you that the coordinators met yesterday and took several decisions. The decisions have been distributed to you.
Are there any comments on the coordinators' decisions? I see no comments.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.