Brussels, 25/05/2016 (Agence Europe) - The argument advanced by car makers that some defeat devices are necessary to protect vehicles' engines is not a valid one from a technical point of view, according to Richard Smockers, Principal Adviser, Sustainable Transport & Logistics, Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research (TNO), addressing MEPs on European Parliament's committee of inquiry into the Volkswagen scandal.
After denying the existence of any devices falsifying vehicle performance data on emissions of polluting gases (NOx), some car makers then argued that they were needed to protect the engine. According to a number of Parliamentary and civil society sources, they make use of a specific provision of Regulation 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6). While Article 3 of the regulation contains a detailed definition of what is meant by “defeat device”, Article 5 makes provision for exemption from the ban on such devices when “the need for the device is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle”.
According to what Smockers said, as reported to EUROPE by Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) and two other Parliamentary sources, this argument does not stand up, whatever the ambient or internal temperature. Annika Isaksson, Chief Executive of Amminex, a Danish company specialising emissions regulating technologies, invited to attend by the Greens Group, said that proven technology already exists: ASDFS technology in the elective catalytic reduction (SCR) system. This would allow the Euro 5 and Euro 6 objectives to be met and would work “under any driving conditions - even at -20 degrees and in town”, unlike conventional AdBlue technology. “This technology does not involve any higher costs that existing technologies which are used by most car makers”, she told EUROPE. It can also be fitted in old cars, she added.
The meeting of the committee of inquiry on 24 May marks the end of the phase devoted to technical points. The next meetings will be devoted to the car makers. Thereafter will follow the “political” phase when European commissioners, including those no longer in post, will be called to give evidence. Among those called will be former industry commissioner and current MEP Antonio Tajani (EPP, Italy). He is expected to come before the committee in September, despite the opposition of his political group (see EUROPE 11541). Günther Verheugen, also a former industry commissioner, would appear to be turning a deaf ear to the MEPs to appear, having declined a first request to appear. “We will ask Martin Schulz (Ed: European Parliament President) to undertake to bring pressure to bear”, a source indicated. From October, MEPs will begin talking to national approval authorities. Lastly, the committee will ask those who have not been deemed to have been convincing to re-appear before them. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre performed poorly and its representatives will “certainly be called back”, in the view of the same source. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)