The impact assessment (IA) clearly identifies the initiative's central trade-off: the more flexibility manufacturers are granted, the lower their compliance costs – but the higher the running costs for vehicle users and society, because more non-zero-emission vehicles remain in the fleet. The IA assesses many options with different degrees of flexibility for car manufactures. It is based on a relatively rich methodology. It quantifies impacts for manufacturers, consumers, society and the environment based on a solid modelling set-up complemented by a total-cost-of-ownership approach. It captures distributional impacts and sectoral shifts. At the same time, considerable weaknesses remain. The intervention logic is weakened where problems are framed as risks relying significantly on stakeholders' perceptions, particularly on non-compliance, possible premiums and investment gaps. The objectives and monitoring framework remain largely broad, particularly at operational level, and the uncertainty analysis is limited to electricity- and battery-price sensitivities. Although the evaluations of impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and on competitiveness are useful, they rely on limited and partly qualitative input, with no disaggregation by SME size class. More importantly, the final proposal departs from the IA in several respects – notably on 2035 targets, fuel and steel flexibilities, multiannual compliance, and 'made in the EU' conditionalities – without explaining the reasons or likely impacts of these differences. Finally, the IA, which usefully situates the proposal within the wider automotive package, would have benefited from an assessment of the combined effects of that package, providing clearer visibility on how its measures are expected to interact. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP Read more