{"id":477,"date":"2026-05-17T18:55:11","date_gmt":"2026-05-17T17:55:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/?page_id=477"},"modified":"2026-05-17T23:52:24","modified_gmt":"2026-05-17T22:52:24","slug":"past-the-2035-rift","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/past-the-2035-rift\/","title":{"rendered":"Past the 2035 rift: what is at stake in the CO\u2082 standards trilogues?"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

EU Climate and Industrial Policy<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Past the 2035 rift: what is at stake in the CO\u2082 standards trilogues?<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

EU lawmakers and member states are set to enter the final negotiations of the CO2<\/sub> standards act. Both the European Parliament and the Council have accepted the Commission’s proposal to step back from the 2035 combustion engine ban. The battle between the co-legislators will instead be fought over the architecture of flexibility for automakers, the stringency and use of fines, and the regulation’s social dimension.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"\"\r\n
Starting on May 18, the European Parliament, Council, and Commission will meet for intra-institutional negotiations, so-called trilogues, to find a final agreement on the revision of Regulation (EU) 2019\/631.<\/figcaption>\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Joshua Starbatty<\/strong> in Paris | Published MAY 18 2026<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n

When negotiators from the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission sit down today for the first round of the trilogues on the CO\u2082 standards revision, they do so in a state of unanimity on what was, until recently, the most politically charged question on the file<\/a>. Neither institution touched the Commission’s December proposal<\/a> to lower the 2035 fleet-wide emission reduction target from 100% to 90% and allow the 10% residual tailpipe emissions to be offset through credits for \u201csustainable renewable fuels\u201d and \u201clow-carbon\u201d steel. The Council\u2019s and EP\u2019s silent approval means the end of the combustion engine ban by 2035 is (almost) set in stone.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

However, the agreement between the co-legislators is less obvious on the rest of the file.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Parliament’s mandate, adopted by the ENVI committee on 17 April, consolidates sixteen compromise amendments that were negotiated jointly by a coalition between the EPP, S&D and Renew, and it equals a far-reaching overhaul<\/a> of the Commission text. The EP, represented by its designated chief negotiator \u2013 Maximilien Jagiello \u2013 seeks to rebalance compliance flexibilities for carmakers, while adding new obligations for them to notify governments before restructuring and to adopt \u201cworkforce transition plans\u201d. It also introduces lifecycle emissions thinking into the regulation by adding another super-credit system and seeks a 55% earmark of all potential fine revenue for the Social Climate Fund, while simultaneously lowering the amount of fines where member states have failed to meet their mandatory EV charging infrastructure targets.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Published on 24 April, the Council’s general approach is a much narrower set of departures from the Commission text. Multiannual compliance windows for manufacturers are extended from three to five years. The excess emissions premium is cut from EUR 95 per gram over target to EUR 85. A new super-credit for “low-emission vehicles” up to 50 g CO\u2082\/km \u2014 in practice plug-in hybrids \u2014 is introduced until 2029. And the Commission’s 7% cap on steel credits is raised to 10%, allowing \u201clow-carbon\u201d steel to offset the entire post-2035 flexibility envelope.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The two mandates do not embed a structural disagreement over whether the industry needs more breathing room. But they diverge on how much flexibility to allow and how to provision it \u2013 meaning whether to give it for free or to attach strings. In direct comparison to the EP, the Council has put together much more of an \u2018industry comfort package\u2019.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n

The political dynamics<\/strong> in the Parliament appear stable. Rapporteur Maximilien Jagiello told the FT <\/a>that the EPP\u2013S&D\u2013Renew coalition \u2013 that comfortably secures a majority in the EP plenary \u2013 will defend the package together in the trilogues. The controversial amendment 67b \u2013 a crisis-suspension clause sponsored by the ECR that has caused visible friction inside the coalition \u2013 he dismissed as ” a technical artefact” that he does not intend to defend if it comes under fire in the trilogues.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Council’s internal dynamics are harder to assess. The \u201cGreen Coalition\u201d, including among others France, the Netherlands, and Ireland, had told the FT in March<\/a> that they would work to lower or even exclude fuel credits and plead for a stricter emissions headline target by 2035. Both goals have not been attained. The coalition might have secured a win in allowing \u201clow-carbon steel\u201d to offset the entire 10% residual emissions post-2035. Overall, however, it appears that the self-branded \u201cPragmatic Coalition\u201d of states such as Hungary, Poland, Czechia, and Bulgaria and some member states in the middle, likely Germany, were more successful in moving the Council\u2019s general approach towards \u2018manufacturer-comfort\u2019.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Commission is nominally the trilogue’s broker; however, it has its own preferred outcome in something in the spirit of its original proposal. Given the member state\u2019s approach is closer to the original text, this might mean the Commission will silently favour the Council. However, according to Jagiello<\/a>, the EP has worked significantly closer with the Commission on the technical and legal aspects of its amendments than the Council has done throughout the last months.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

A first trilogue rarely concludes a file as politically charged as this one. While likely continuing to be lobbied heavily by industrial, social, and climate interest groups, the negotiators have set out to find a deal by Friday. But the 2035 headline target \u2013 a few months ago the defining question of European automotive policy \u2013 is not where the trilogues will be fought.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

T<\/strong><\/em>he FT has compiled a provision-by-provision comparison of the initial Commission proposal, the Parliament’s mandate and the Council’s general approach for readers following the trilogues closely. It is available here.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n

Also read<\/strong>:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

“We are very strong. We are all tied together” \u2013<\/strong> EPP rapporteur Maximilien Jagiello on the eve of the CO\u2082 trilogues<\/a><\/strong> \u2013<\/strong> by Joshua Starbatty | MAY 17 2026<\/strong>
The EPP rapporteur for the CO2<\/sub>\u00a0standards revision spoke about his view on the upcoming trilogues, the Parliament\u2019s mandate and the political dynamics in the ENVI Committee, in an exclusive interview with the FT.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

And<\/strong>:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

What is the “Green Coalition”? \u2014 An exclusive Interview<\/a><\/strong>
\u2013<\/strong> by Joshua Starbatty | MAR 25 2026<\/strong>
The FT spoke with a group of member states that plead for more climate ambition in the automotive package and decided to form a \u201cGreen Coalition\u201d.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EU Climate and Industrial Policy Past the 2035 rift: what is at stake in the CO\u2082 standards trilogues? EU lawmakers and member states are set to enter the final negotiations of the CO2 standards act. Both the European Parliament and the Council have accepted the Commission’s proposal to step back from the 2035 combustion engine […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-no-title","meta":{"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-477","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=477"}],"version-history":[{"count":34,"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":517,"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/477\/revisions\/517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.sim-ex.eu\/financialtimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}