COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EMISSION MEASUREMENTS IN … · 2016. 8. 29. · Gaspar Gascon Abellan,...

13-07-2016 1

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EMISSION MEASUREMENTS IN THE

AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR (EMIS)

HEARINGS

WEDNESDAY 13 JULY 2016

* * *

Hearing of Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering

(Renault Group)

* * *

Hearings of

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development

(Volkswagen Group)

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the Volkswagen brand

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development (Volkswagen Group)

2 13-07-2016

1-002-0000

IN THE CHAIR: KATHLEEN VAN BREMPT

1-003-0000

Chair. – Colleagues, we have two very important hearings this morning. I would like to

welcome our guests, Mr Gascon Abellan, Ms Dosdat and Ms Van der Valk. I would like to

welcome you and we are very glad that you accepted our invitation. I have to say that all the

car manufacturers we invited accepted our invitation. You how this works. You all know what

the timing is, since after this we also have Volkswagen and that will take time. I will be rather

strict on the timing today – on the five minutes and the three minutes – but first I gladly give

the floor to Mr Gascon Abellan for an introductory statement. You have the floor for

approximately 10 minutes.

1-004-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is my

first time here as well and I have to acknowledge that it is quite impressive. I would like to

thank you for providing us with the opportunity to express Renault’s views regarding the

issue of diesel and NOx emissions. As a Spanish citizen and leader of the Engineering

Department of a French company operating in 120 countries, it is an honour for me to be here

today.

Renault is the leading French automotive brand in the world, and the second best-selling

brand in Europe. As a global company, Renault is conscious of the three main impacts that

cars have on the environment throughout their lifecycle. The first impact is the consumption

of resources, the answer to which is the development of a circular economy.

The second impact is global warming through greenhouse gas emissions, mainly CO2. The

answer to this consists in reducing fuel consumption. Fuel consumption is intrinsically linked

to vehicle weight. Thus, reducing vehicle weight is a priority even if, in parallel, customers’

demands in terms of comfort, equipment, and safety regulatory equipment are items moving

in quite the opposite direction. Engines and gearboxes have seen tremendous progress and are

continuously being improved in order to minimise friction, improve combustion, reduce

engine displacement – so-called ‘downsizing’ –and associate the electric motor and the

internal combustion engine. Of course reducing CO2 emissions means customers reducing

their fuel consumption. As you know, it is also a regulatory constraint for car manufacturers

with a very ambitious 95g/km target by 2021. To reach this objective, we need to offer the

customer a range of technologies: gasoline, diesel, light to heavy hybridisation, up to the pure

electric vehicle, which Renault has been pioneering.

Finally, the third environmental impact of cars is on air quality, due to the emission of

pollutants from combustion. For decades the answer has consisted, on the one hand, in

reducing emissions of pollutants by the engine and, on the other hand, in treating the

pollutants in the exhaust line by means of a catalytic converter and, more recently, a

particulate filter. In this general context, and in the frame of a regulation which is increasingly

too complex to be understood by the general public, a fraudulent practice by one of our

competitors was revealed last September.

Following this, vehicles made by all major car manufacturers have been tested by various

Member States – France, the UK, Germany, Spain and Romania – in order to detect other

potentially illegal devices. The conclusions published as of today – UK and Germany – have

already established that Renault did not equip its vehicles with any fraudulent system. Renault

complies with all the regulations and laws that are applied in all its markets.

These tests also highlighted the fact that Renault could improve NOx emissions in real-life

conditions for its latest Euro 6b vehicles. This is why Groupe Renault announced in

13-07-2016 3

December 2015, and confirmed in April this year, a set of measures that will significantly

reduce these emissions without any noticeable impact on performance or fuel consumption.

These measures will start to come into effect by the end of this month on all new diesel

vehicles produced by our factories. As from October 2016, customers already driving a diesel

Euro 6b vehicle will also be able to benefit from these developments, free of charge,

throughout our network of dealers. Of course new models launched since April also integrate

these developments. Real driving emissions (RDE) monitoring results will demonstrate the

progress that has been made.

Beyond these short-term actions, Renault is developing new technologies to prepare for the

next regulatory step: Euro 6d. In particular, we will apply SCR technology to our entire range

– it is already used in our light commercial vehicles like Trafic and Master – and we will also

introduce a new EGR system, reducing NOx produced by the engine. On some applications,

we may combine SCR with lean NOx trap (LNT) to better manage emissions in city driving,

which is a key point for air quality and public health.

The ultimate answer regarding both CO2 and the emission of pollutants is of course the

electric vehicle. With more than EUR 4 billion invested since 2008, the Renault-Nissan

Alliance is a pioneer and number one worldwide with more than 50% of all electric vehicles

sold in the world. Renault is number one in Europe. The electric vehicle remains, more than

ever, a priority for Renault. Ongoing investments will allow us to double the driving range in

a short time scope. This breakthrough will lift one of the major purchase restrictions and will

facilitate the larger-scale deployment of this technology. We of course need the support of key

European stakeholders, including the European Parliament, to be ambitious on electromobility

in Europe.

We have studied with great attention the questions sent to Renault by your committee and

have tried to bring written answers that are concise, fact-based, and accurate. I thank you for

your attention and I am now at your disposal to exchange views with you based on our

answers to your questionnaire.

1-005-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Thank you for your opening remarks. I would first like

to concentrate on what you believe should be the definition of ‘normal use’ because that is

one of the crucial elements. We have this legislation in place to clean the air in Europe,

especially in cities. I do not think we drafted this legislation to clean the air in laboratories so,

given that notion, do you really believe that ‘normal use’ should be focusing on use in a

laboratory that is, I think, done once for one car type, or do you believe that it is focusing on

the daily use of a car, what I would call normal use?

1-006-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Thank

you very much for the question. I am not going to take the risk of defining ‘normal use’

because we are in a regulated industry and I think ‘normal use’ has to be a very clear and neat

concept for everyone. We are in a technical and technology field, and there has not to be any

room for interpretation. This is what is happening today. So ‘normal use’ today can mean a lot

of different things and it is risky to interpret it on my side. What is clear is that so far – and I

will, as it were, draw a border in my comments – the only way to interpret what is a car that

meets all the type approval requirements is the laboratory test, as you know. This is the only

thing that we can use today as a kind of proof of…

1-007-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – I am sorry to interrupt you, but we only have five

minutes together so I would like to use that as efficiently as possible. Does that mean that the

only focus of your car company has been to pass the test and that you were not interested in

the emissions after the test?

4 13-07-2016

1-008-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Not at all.

When we tune the engines and we tune the different systems in the car, we do that in the spirit

of making them operational in all kinds of ranges; but of course, as you know, there are some

conditions – at some temperatures and at some speeds – and some external conditions –

altitude and so on – that limit the usage of some systems in the cars, and especially after-

treatment systems, on top of some other system, not specifically after-treatment systems.

Under these kinds of constraints of course we have to limit that, but the spirit of the company

and the spirit of my department, as the one responsible for doing that, is not at all just to limit

that only to the homologation test. What is certainly clear is that we have to pass the test. This

is quite clear, but it does not mean that we only work in homologation conditions. This is not

the case at all.

1-009-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – In your written answers you indicate that there has been

a calibration error.

1-010-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Yes.

1-011-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – …and that that should be solved. Can you explain to me

why the cars passed the test when this calibration error was already in the car?

1-012-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is very

easy to explain. In fact it was an error in calibration in a variable in the tuning programmes

that count the number of desulphuration cycles on the NOx trap. I am sorry to have to go into

technical detail but NOx trap systems are saturated by the sulphur content in the fuel. Today

the fuel has sulphur and in a certain way this restricts the operational efficiency of the NOx

trap. So, from time to time, you have to carry out a desulphurisation process which consists in

injecting a certain amount of fuel into the exhaust line in order to produce a kind of reaction

of combustion and you desulphurise the NOx trap. There was a variable in the calibration

system that was missed. It was an indication of temperature that meant that the numerical

count of the sulphur charge in the NOx trap was wrong. It did not take place. At the very

beginning when you validate a car and it is brand new, there is no sulphur in the NOx trap so

it is perfectly good and complies with everything, but it is when you have done some mileage

in the car that the sulphurisation operates. At the end of the day, if you do not carry out the

desulphurisation operation in the car, the NOx trap becomes inefficient or not operational at

all. That is why the cars were good at zero mileage and were not good after a certain number

of thousands of kilometres had been travelled. This was the error and how we detected it.

1-013-0000

Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – Madam Chair, I have two main questions for Mr Abellán.

Firstly, do you feel that the current legislative framework is adequate enough to guarantee

legal certainty and at the same time to enable and ensure compliance with it?

1-014-0000

Gaspar Gascón Abellán, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Madam

Chair, I am not sure that I fully understood the question, but what is clear to me is that the

rules as they stand are inadequate. They are inadequate because they are unclear and fail to

satisfy public opinion. The type approval procedure and the criteria must be as representative

as possible of what constitutes normal use for a car.

For some time now, the Commission has been working on a new set of rules, with new type

approval procedures – the WLTC cycle and real driving emissions – which move precisely in

the direction, on the one hand, of making the tests much more representative, with more

13-07-2016 5

accurate conditions applicable to what this ‘normal use’ is – and I think this is a big step

forward and, naturally, the car industry, and Renault in particular, are fully in favour of this

approach.

On the other hand, it is essential for there to be explicit understanding between car makers and

the regulatory authorities of the cases and circumstances in which the use of aftertreatment

systems needs to be restricted owing to technical limitations. This is also the true of the

development of the Directive, which is flawed as it stands, and more specifically of Article

5(2), under which there is no obligation to list the conditions under which aftertreatment and

decontamination systems are less efficient.

Under the new rules we are required to list the strategies – the so-called AES-BES (auxiliary

emission strategy and base emission strategy) which indicate the limitations of the system

perfectly. In this respect I feel there is sufficient clarity vis-à-vis the authorities and, of course,

vis-à-vis society as a whole as regards how the car’s emissions and emission reduction

systems are operating.

The rules and the new law are a step in the right direction in this respect. The law needs to be

fully developed because in practice it still comes up short in some areas. The real driving

emissions cycle is still open to interpretation and we will certainly have to clarify this for car

makers so that we have a system which is reliable under all conditions and which can be

comparable and is not open to interpretation.

In my opinion, the decisions the Commission is adopting in this connection are a move in the

right direction.

1-015-0000

Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – So if I understand correctly, the new rules the Commission is

proposing will not pose any threat to the diesel industry, but will in fact present it with an

opportunity.

What do you think the diesel industry will look like in the future, once these new rules have

entered into force?

1-016-0000

Gaspar Gascón Abellán, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – The new

rules are a step in the right direction as far as clarity is concerned, of course, and as regards

providing a framework that is more attuned to reality.

In another sense, it is somewhat difficult to meet the criteria and emissions limits as they

stand at present. By that I don’t mean that we do not have the necessary technology or that the

technology enabling us to respect those conditions does not exist, but that this is still under

development, and it has still to be shown that we can meet the limits.

What seems clear to me is that not only will the technical difficulties this entails have to be

factored in, resulting in a major increase in diesel costs, which will diminish the appeal of

some vehicle segments, but also that there will be an unavoidable deterioration in diesel’s

reputation.

We estimate that diesels is not going to increase as part of the mix – that is for certain – but in

fact the opposite. And it will of course spur people to find alternative solutions, which will not

be easy, to simultaneously achieve CO2 emissions reduction targets.

That is going to present a major challenge.

6 13-07-2016

1-017-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – I am going to ask a series of short questions; I am looking for

short answers. Please excuse the fact that I am not very smart on these issues. What is the

main goal of your company, in a word? Why does your company exist?

1-018-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Of course,

it is to provide mobility to everyone, it is affordability, affordable mobility for everyone.

1-019-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – So you want to make a profit, and in order to make a profit you

sell automobiles. Is the process simple or complex to manufacture an automobile?

1-020-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is very

complex.

1-021-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Is it getting simpler or is it becoming more complex as time goes

on?

1-022-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is

becoming more and more complex.

1-023-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Is there a difference between petrol technologies and diesel

technologies? Is one more or less complex than the other?

1-024-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Petrol

technologies are simpler than diesel technologies.

1-025-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Petrol technologies are simpler than diesel technologies?

1-026-0000


1-027-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Worldwide, do you sell automobiles only in Europe, or do you

sell outside of Europe as well?

1-028-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – On a

worldwide basis, today, our main market of course is Europe; our worldwide basis is more

petrol, out of Europe and except in India – India is mostly diesel as well. Diesel in Europe ...

So in our company, in fact, we are selling almost 45% of diesel and the rest is petrol; petrol

solution, electric...

1-029-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Okay. So, in Europe what is the share of diesel versus petrol?

1-030-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Today, it

depends, you know, on average for us it is about 55%.

1-031-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Diesel?

1-032-0000


1-033-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – 55% diesel. And do you sell in the US market?

13-07-2016 7

1-034-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No.

1-035-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – No vehicles in the US market? Why are you not selling vehicles

in the US market?

1-036-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – The

company has not been selling any kind of vehicles at all because we just decided not to enter

this market, at all. It is not because of diesel or because of petrol.

1-037-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Okay, it is a market decision. Now turning to technologies, you

said that petrol technologies are more simple, that diesel technologies are more complex. So

why on earth would you sell diesel vehicles in Europe if they are more complex?

1-038-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is a

very simple question, you know. In Europe, compared to the other markets, it is a very

constrained CO2 regulations that does not exist in any other market.

1-039-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Okay, so in Europe, we have very stringent CO2 requirements and

this is why you are making diesel engines. Can you just explain the difference in CO2

emissions between diesel and petrol engines?

1-040-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – You

know, by virtue justice of physical laws it is very simple. A diesel engine consumes or

reduces the CO2 emissions by about in between 20% to 30% in real running conditions

compared to a petrol engine. And today diesel is the most versatile solution for all kinds of

customers.

1-041-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Okay. Now regarding other emissions than nitrous dioxide, the

NOx, what is the difference between petrol and diesel engines, with these emissions?

1-042-0000


difference is that usually the combustion of a diesel – diesel combustion – is a high

temperature combustion and with a high temperature combustion you produce NOx. This is

not the case when you are reducing the temperature of combustion as in petrol. Petrol

combustion is...

1-043-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – So diesel technologies are sold in Europe, because we have high

CO2 standards, but diesel technologies, you are saying, also have higher NOx emissions based

upon laws of physics…

1-044-0000


physics.

1-045-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Now your company, has it always been aware that diesel

technology, while reducing CO2, has a difficulty with high NOx emissions compared to

petrol?

1-046-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Of course;

everybody is aware of that.

8 13-07-2016

1-047-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Okay. And now, why do you think this has not been ... Has

European legislation paid attention to the NOx emissions?

1-048-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – European

legislation has paid attention to NOx emissions. I am sorry; in the different regulation steps

you see NOx as a topic to be treated, at a different level.

1-049-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Right. But within our system the main goal has still been to

reduce CO2; that has been the driver.

1-050-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No, you

have to comply with all the different constraints. You have to reduce CO2, you have to reduce

NOx, at the level that regulations really mandate and you have as well, you know, to do the

best and the optimal in terms of customer performance system. You have to combine all these

constraints all together.

1-051-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Just to follow on a little bit, so there is, effectively, a trade-off between

CO2 emissions and air quality? Is that what you are saying?

1-052-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I’m sorry,

I didn’t understand you very well.

1-053-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Basically, in order to reduce CO2, you are concentrating on a particular

fuel technology, but that in effect has a detrimental air quality impact. So is there a trade-off

between CO2 reduction and air quality?

1-054-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – There are

always trade-offs in the technology, and especially on the power train system, there are

always trade-offs, You have to just to combine both trade-offs and you have to find solutions

in order to be able to improve on CO2 and to improve as well on NOx. There are some

solutions. The solutions are, of course, more and more expensive. This is the drawback of the

technology, but all these after-treatment systems go in this direction, and also some other

internal systems in the engine like higher fuel injection pressure and some other…

1-055-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – … an EGR thing in it. So, effectively what we have heard in this

committee during our hearing process so far, is that there are three main ways of reducing

pollutants within the vehicle: EGR, SCR and lean NOx traps. A combination thereof, we have

been told, can reduce the emissions from a vehicle to safe levels. What we are finding, or

what we believe we are finding, is that the temperature, the thermal window, that

manufacturers are employing can vary greatly. That depends on standards that the vehicle

manufacturers themselves determine. Is it true that your abatement technology systems switch

off – or reduce their effectiveness, certainly – below 17° C?

1-056-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – You have,

you know, when we say switch off, it will switch off only under, for instance -20°C. Between

-20°C… still under some operating conditions, you have to have regulated steps of

effectiveness of the after-treatment system, conditioned by some technical risks that you have

just to avoid, to remove. For instance there are some chemical and physical phenomena,

especially with the EGR system that is the most efficient way to reduce NOx emissions. You

have to go to cope with all this varnishing phenomenon, soot accumulation.

13-07-2016 9

1-057-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Sure, sure, but at 17° C, that’s when it reaches its maximum...

1-058-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It’s a

question of… between 17° C and 35° C is the full operational range…

1-059-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – It’s a very narrow window. I mean it is mid-July and here in Brussels

we are struggling even to get to 17°C today. The average temperature in Europe, across the

European Union, is 9°C and of course in some jurisdictions, for instance, in the United States,

they have specifications that say you cannot have your abatement technology reduce its

efficiency below -4°C. There’s a big difference obviously between minus 4°C and plus 17°C.

At 17°C I can just about get away with a light jacket, at -4°C probably not. So what is the

difference here? And does that -4°C regulation in the States have any impact whatsoever on

your decision not to enter the US market?

1-060-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No.

1-061-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – None whatsoever?

1-062-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No, that

has nothing to do with the decision….

1-063-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – So basically you could meet that -4° C…

1-064-0000


decision not to enter… No, you cannot go to the US market without developing products that

are fitting the American regulations and it’s not only an issue regarding the engines, it is an

issue regarding the roadworthiness of the car...

1-065-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – But you could do that theoretically, you could do that, you have the

ability to have your engines meet the specification that they would not reduce their abatement

technology under -4°C?

1-066-0000


we could do that.

1-067-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Why don’t you do that in Europe? If it’s possible, why don’t you do that

here?

1-068-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I’m sorry,

today in Europe the engines that we’re using are fitted to what is the European market in

terms of CO2, which is in the customer...

1-069-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Sure, but it’s possible to have that technology, you’ve just said it’s

possible, so why do Europeans have to wait until it’s 17°C before the abatement technology

kicks in?

1-070-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. –The

technology is available now, we have to introduce this technology. What we also have to bear

in mind is that the measurements covering real driving, what we call real driving emissions of

NOx, is quite recent in terms of awareness, because there was not any kind of device to

10 13-07-2016

measure them. The PEMS, the portable emissions systems, are really from, you know, 3 or 4

years ago.

1-071-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – I would like to put my questions in German. So I will give you

a moment to put your headphones on. Mr Gascon Abellan, first of all, my compliments! You

appear on the agenda here as ‘Executive Vice-President Engineering’, but listening to you,

you could just as well be the Executive Vice-President Marketing. You did that really

exceptionally well.

I should just like to start with a supplementary question on the complex of issues that were

being discussed a moment ago. Mention was made of this window between 17° C or 30° C or

35° C. One thing seems very clear, namely that this window is particularly narrow at Renault

compared to the competition. Can you explain to me why this is?

1-072-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I will

answer in English. First of all, when we say that the window is between 17°C and 35°C, I just

have to clarify that these are the conditions where the EGR is at full operation. It does not

mean that we do not cut EGR below 17°C. EGR is still operating from -20%.

1-073-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Yes, Mr Gascon, I am aware of that. That is what you just said.

My question is why this window is so narrow at Renault compared to the competition.

1-074-0000


limitation on our systems of EGR usage depends very much on the engine layout. The

generation of engines that we are talking about are engines that were developed in 2012. That

was the start of development. We need four or five years to develop a new generation of

engines. This means that the development of these engines started in 2006-2007 with a

technology that was the best in its class at that date. When you launch a new generation of

engines you have to operate then for at least four or five years.

1-075-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Thank you, Mr Gascon, that is enough. I don’t think I will get a

proper answer to this question.

But if I could perhaps put a different question: You pointed out – correctly – that Renault did

not use any cheating software. And now we are seeing, with this scandal at Volkswagen, how

consumers feel cheated by Volkswagen, how the authorities feel cheated, and how the people

breathing the air feel cheated. I would just like to ask you: Does Renault also feel cheated by

Volkswagen in that they have given themselves an unfair advantage by using this cheating

software?

1-076-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – What is

the question? If we are frightened by data?

1-077-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – No, whether you feel you have suffered from unfair competition

from VW.

1-078-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Of course

this is not good news for the industry, but at the same time they have put on the table the fact

that probably the regulatory system was not complete and was not robust enough in order to

regulate the industry. So on the one hand it is clear that we have been bashed by all that has

happened. On the other hand, what we have to do is to see how we can improve in order to re-

establish customer confidence and trust. That is all.

13-07-2016 11

1-079-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Yes, but I am really interested in something else. I come from

the industry myself and I was on the supervisory board of a motor manufacturer for many

years. Did Renault ever consider taking VW to court for instigating unfair competition?

1-080-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Sorry, we

are not pursuing anybody in justice because, in order to pursue somebody in justice, you have

to know exactly what happened. So far for us, we still do not understand what happened in

Volkswagen and we do not understand what is going on with some other carmakers either.

We are not doing that today.

1-081-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Thank you for being here, Mr Abellan. I will go back to the

question of the thermal window. You said at the very beginning that you did not use devices

to cheat customers, but you designed the window for certain purposes. If you go to Paris, the

mean temperature is between 16°C and 9°C. Your thermal window was between 20°C and

30°C. My conclusion on that is that you designed a thermal window with an apparent will to

circumvent the regulations. Is that true?

1-082-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No, that is

not true. We have explained to the French authorities fully how the thermal window works

and why it has been set and what were the constraints of the usage of EGR in all operating

conditions of the car. So I do not agree with your statement or your convictions on that. We

can explain that in detail.

1-083-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – But you made a decision to construct a window which is above the

normal conditions in any European country.

1-084-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Normal

conditions are not defined today. What is certain is that we have to go through all

homologation tests. This is certain. Everybody has to go through that. But what you call

normal use is not clear. What we have to do is just to implement systems that work the best in

all kinds of conditions, of course considering the limitation of the technical decisions we

made in the past. What I have tried to explain, even if it is a little difficult, is that these

engines are at the point where we are developing them with such a kind of EGR system. As

with all the kinds of system, that presents some limitations and these limitations are related to

these temperature windows. So when we are talking about temperature, it does not mean the

air intake temperature. It is the air temperature in the engine layout under the hood. It has

nothing to do with external conditions.

1-085-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – The air probably comes from external conditions in most cars.

1-086-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No,

external conditions and internal conditions in the engine layout are related through very

complex equations, because it depends whether the car is stationary or is driving, the usage of

the ancillary systems in the car and the design of the engine layout in the hood. There are a lot

of parameters that affect that.

1-087-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – I think your explanation sounds slightly hollow. What are the

technical safe operation conditions, including ambient temperatures, with the emission

technologies you have?

12 13-07-2016

1-088-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – In detail,

all these conditions are now in the new AES-BS files that we are submitting to the French

authorities in the next homologations and which regularise that. We have explained that the

list of parameters is quite long because it depends not only on temperature. Temperature is

one of the factors, but it depends on the load of the car as well. In certain conditions, for

instance, you cannot open an EGR valve because the temperature is so high that the valve

cannot resist such a high temperature. It depends on altitude as well.

We have listed all the conditions and we have given the reasons. You have heard from me that

we are presenting an improvement plan. There are some conditions that we are still revisiting,

and asking ‘Can we go beyond this? Yes or no?’ So we are in a process. I have no time here

to show you the hundreds of parameters.

1-089-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Shouldn’t you have done this 10 years ago?

1-090-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Ten years

ago when we developed this, first of all, you have to bear in mind that the industry and the

technology were evolving. Ten years ago we were in the Euro 4 regulation. In the Euro 4

regulation the limits were completely different. We have no idea about what the real driving

emissions were at that time. I am sorry: we have no idea.

There was no PEMS device to tell us precisely what we were emitting. So we designed the

engines at that time in the light of the knowledge we had in this context and we introduced

some innovations like a low-pressure EGR. So our engines are fitted with two EGR systems.

At the same time, we discovered the limitations in certain extreme air conditions, with the

boundary conditions today of the thermal window, and we could not go beyond that. This is

the technology that has been developed during the last 10 years, and now of course we are

improving it for the new Euro 6 generation. We are revisiting all this technical background

because we now have much more data, including from experience, that can be used to

improve the technology.

1-091-0000

Νeoklis Sylikiotis (GUE/NGL). – Madam Chair, Mr Abellan, you will be aware that, in its

2013 report, the Commission's Joint Research Centre warned of the possibility of defeat

devices being used to falsify emissions readings. Were you in the industry aware of this

possibility? Was it in fact, as they say, an open secret that pollutant emissions readings could

be falsified?

My question is whether you in the industry knew of this.

1-092-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I am not

sure whether I understood your question. Our understanding of the regulation was – and this

has been the case for many years, since Euro 3 and Euro 4 – that you have to use all that you

can in terms of after-treatment or engine-out emissions to reduce the impact of the engines but

Article 5(2) opens the possibility that, if you are putting at risk the safety or reliability of the

engine, you can limit the effectiveness of the emission system. Unfortunately, there was no

clear definition of this kind of effectiveness reduction. There was also no obligation to explain

the constraints on every carmaker in terms of reducing or limiting the operation of

after-treatment systems.

1-093-0000

Neoklis Sylikiotis (GUE/NGL). – My question was different. I wanted to know whether you

know what possibility there was here for changing the software. This was my question.

13-07-2016 13

1-094-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – You can

always modify software, whenever you like, but you have to respect the law. I do not really

understand your question. You can manipulate everything in the world but you have to meet

the requirements of the regulations and laws.

1-095-0000

Νeoklis Sylikiotis (GUE/NGL). – The next question was whether additional verifications

were carried out by you in the industry following this discovery and whether the authorities

asked you for further information once this scandalous state of affairs was confirmed.

I should also like to add something, Mr Abellan. In January 2016, Renault shares fell by as

much as 20% following reports of a raid on your premises to investigate suspicions of fraud

regarding pollutant emissions.

Furthermore, according to data published by the International Council on Clean

Transportation (ICCT), initial findings in France regarding diesel automobile emissions

appear to reinforce suspicions that Volkswagen was not the sole culprit and that other

manufacturers were also using defeat devices to falsify emissions readings.

How does Renault respond to these allegations and can you explain the reasons for your

decision to withdraw 15 000 vehicles in January so as to verify their compliance with

pollutant emissions standards? Were you selling cars for all those years while aware that they

might not be in compliance with European law? These questions all relate to Renault in

particular.

1-096-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I am

going to give you a clear answer. When the Volkswagen ‘scandal’ broke, we completely

reviewed our procedures. We carried out an in-house check because in such circumstances we

are duty bound to ascertain whether something similar could exist in our own company.

Clearly, the answer is no. The authorities have shown, through the various tests they carried

out, that Renault vehicles were not fitted with any such cheat system. I think that was made

very clear.

Returning to the reference you made to the vehicle recall, I want to stress again that that had

nothing to do with the Volkswagen case. It is simply a fault, an error in calibration in 11 000

vehicles, which meant we did not comply with the approval procedures in force. Accordingly,

when a mistake has been made, it has to be corrected, but only 11 000 vehicles were affected.

That has nothing to do with fraudulent software or any kind of illegal practice.

1-097-0000

Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Good morning, I would like to come back to the question of

temperatures.

It has been acknowledged that the emission control system on Renault vehicles does not work,

or does not work well, or is inefficient above or below ambient temperatures of 20 to

30 degrees, and that is the case under the official system used to date in the tests, namely the

famous new European cycle in force since 1973.

Article 3 of the 2008 Regulation recommends that the manufacturer gives the approval

authorities a description of all the effects equipment fitted in a vehicle has on emissions.

Did Renault forward this information to the approval authorities or the technical service

before or during the certification process, as required by Article 3 of the Regulation? That is

the first question I would like to ask.

14 13-07-2016

My second question is as follows: as a representative of Renault, can you tell us today that

Renault recognises that as far as most people, and hence consumers who have purchased your

vehicles, are concerned a pollutant emissions control system that works perfectly at

temperatures below 17 degrees and above 0 degrees is quite simply a system that can be

regarded as normal?

I have a problem with this situation because you used the word ‘normal’ just now. Can you

say that normal use in emission tests reduces normality in the laboratory? It is just like saying:

we should test the brakes but the conclusions will be the same, whether under real driving

conditions or in a laboratory test, and you consider that to be normal. Just now, my colleague

from the GUE Group spoke too about improving vehicle recalls following ‘dieselgate’.

You have in the past few months announced the recall of several Euro 6 certified models such

as the Captur and the Espace 6, but not the Euro 5 certified Clio 4, although recent

measurements for the latter, in the Walloon Region in particular, continue to show a gap of

4.23 between the real standard and what had been calculated.

And that is not all, since the technical committee known as the ‘Royal Committee’ in France

also tested the Clio 4 and it turns out that in terms of compliance with emission value limits, it

does not even pass the type-approval tests.

I would like to know therefore why you have not arranged for these vehicles to be recalled,

what you are planning to do to improve matters, particularly for vehicles that will soon be

certified and what you are planning to do for those on the road now. That is where our

problem lies!

1-098-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Listen, to

the first question – ‘Do we inform the authorities of all conditions?’ – the answer is quite

simply, ‘Yes, we inform them’. We have just done so recently for vehicles that will very

shortly be type-approved. After that, you asked: ‘What are normal conditions?’ Frankly, I do

not want to answer that question about what constitutes normal conditions; it is for the

regulatory authorities to define them. I will give you a very vivid example: with the current

R2 cycle, we have to comply with emissions standards at 160 km/hr. I do not know whether

those are normal conditions but they are nowadays part of the standard.

It is clear that this does not and cannot represent normal use, but in the new type-approval

cycles, that is what we are expected to comply with.

Once again, I am not going to judge how normal these conditions are, but they represent the

normality that the Commission has voted in or decided to apply. All we can do is abide by it.

After that you mentioned several things which – I am sorry to tell you – are inaccurate

concerning recalls. 11 000 Kadjar and Captur were recalled because of a calibration error. A

calibration error which has nothing to do with the current discussion. It happens and it has

happened before in different circumstances. In terms of calibration, when we find that

vehicles do not comply with the law, that has to be put right. That is what Renault has done.

We did not recall the Espace because none of the Espace models fail to comply with the law.

1-099-0000

Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – And the Clio, then?

1-100-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, We have not informed our customers about all that. No one is

going to understand all that.

13-07-2016 15

As for the last question you asked, namely ‘Do the factors or emissions in real driving

conditions go beyond the laboratory test conditions, which we are expected to apply?’ Yes,

that is true and it is true for all vehicles. Nowadays, what we have done – Renault was the first

to test this – we saw there was room for improvement and we have of our own volition put

forward an improvement scheme that we are now in the process of implementing and which

the French authorities can confirm is proving really effective.

1-101-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – I have only been in politics for a short while and am honoured to be

a Member of the European Parliament. However, I learned very quickly that not only the

articles of a regulation but also the recitals of that regulation must be respected, and very often

it is the recitals that guide one in correctly interpreting the law itself.

I am very surprised and also very irritated by the fact that it is repeatedly being said that the

regulation is unclear, when in fact there are recitals which actually give such guidance and

state that the regulation itself was framed and adopted to address air quality issues. Common

sense would therefore dictate that the phrase ‘normal conditions of vehicle use’ had that in

mind, which means a reduction in emissions.

I would like to know how it is possible for the phrase ‘normal conditions of use’ to be unclear,

and how it is possible for the interpretation of Article 5.2 to be unclear or for the phrase

‘significant reduction in the efficiency of emissions reduction systems and technology’ to be

unclear. On the other hand, however, I can see that you are extremely clear and certain that

emission levels should be respected, under the regulation, in the laboratory – we spoke about

this earlier. Can it be possible that you had no doubts as to whether the emissions had to be

respected not in the laboratory, but on the road, which is where people drive cars?

I have three questions: are your vehicles compliant? Are the ones tested exactly the same as

the ones driven in our towns and cities? According to the European Environment Agency,

there are at least eight different tricks used in tests, and in particular the NEDC test. Can you

therefore confirm that your vehicles are the same on the streets and off?

1-102-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – First of

all, the vehicles we test in official tests are vehicles taken from production; these vehicles are

wholly identical to those in production. Next, obviously, the test cycle is not representative of

all conditions under which the vehicle is used. It is a cycle conducted in very precise

temperature conditions – between 20 and 30 degrees – and in conditions that follow a

precisely described and determined speed and acceleration profile. That cannot represent the

whole range of use made of the vehicle.

1-103-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Very well, let’s move on. You said that in order to comply with the

on-road emissions tests, you will adopt and must adopt the three technologies in a calibrated

manner – and so EGR, SCR or LNT. What prevented you from using these three technologies

immediately?

1-104-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – First of

all, in all humility, we are going to use that, we are in the process of developing a combination

of these technologies. We have not yet arrived at a solution. By combining these technologies,

we believe we can manage to comply with the thresholds set in the new Euro 6d standard. We

are not sure though. We have not yet developed these technologies. It takes three to four years

to develop a new generation diesel engine.

16 13-07-2016

1-105-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – So you have known about the regulation since 2007. But I would

like to change tack: you received financial assistance to introduce these emissions reduction

technologies, which are provided for in the regulation and the rules and which are needed to

reduce emissions. Since the effectiveness of these technologies under real driving conditions

has not been proven, this could be perceived as illegal funding, if not illicit or at least

inappropriate.

1-106-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I do not

quite understand the question. We do not really receive any subsidies for engine development.

We develop our engines using our own resources. In the countries where we operate, as in

France, there is obviously some general assistance for all the research and development work

but I do not see the link between what you are saying and the fact of having technology that is

clean or ready today. Sorry!

1-107-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – The off-gas circulation systems, which are necessarily included to

decrease emissions, simultaneously decrease the operating temperature of the engine. This

means that the degree of efficiency would also be reduced. You mentioned at the beginning

that you improved the friction within the engine. Which values did you reach for diesel and

for petrol-driven cars?

1-108-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Sorry,

could you please repeat your first question. I understood the second one but not the first.

1-109-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – The off-gas recirculation system, necessarily included to decrease

emissions, simultaneously decreases the operating temperature of the engine.

1-110-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I will not

go into too much technical detail, but EGR systems today have completely evolved. One of

the key questions is that the system should be able to operate better at higher and at a larger

range of temperatures, so clearly we are now working on solutions. There are EGRs cooled by

water, completely integrated in the engine structure – this is one approach – in order to avoid

any of the undesirable effects that we have today in the operation of the current EGR systems,

especially at lower temperature ranges. This is the key question for us today.

Currently, we are completely changing the technology, which means completely redesigning

the engine in order to do that. At the same time, in terms of the high peaks of temperature that

currently play a part in determining NOx, we are trying to reduce as much as possible the

compression ratio that also determines the factor for high peaks of temperature that produce a

lot of NOx emissions in the base.

On your other question, on friction, we are introducing a lot of new materials, especially new

coatings on the moving parts of the engines, such as crankshafts, pistons and everything that

rotates in the car. They are called diamond-like coatings, and are now quite popular in racing

cars. We are introducing that in order greatly to reduce friction and avoid having to use fuel in

order to increase the performance of the product. This is ongoing. It is part of the current

developments, and you will see these new technologies in the new Euro 6 generation.

1-111-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – But what is the degree of efficacy?

1-112-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I do not

want to be too optimistic but we are clearly aiming …

13-07-2016 17

1-113-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – No, I am not talking about aiming.

1-114-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – ... close to

40% efficiency.

1-115-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – Can I ask a question about the calibration error? What effect did

this error have on the engine?

1-116-0000


explain that again. The NOx trap is charged with sulphur because there is sulphur in fuel

today. Even the current fuels in Europe are regulated at 10 ppm of sulphur. This sulphur

accumulates in the NOx trap. When you accumulate sulphur, you reduce the effectiveness of

the NOx trap system so, from time to time, you have to inject some fuel to produce a kind of

reaction, a high temperature, in order to transform this sulphur, to clean the NOx trap and to

make it 100% operational. This happens more or less every 1000 kilometres.

Regarding the mistake we made: we have a software counter in the calibration that counts the

level of sulphur charge of the NOx trap in order to activate, when the conditions are reached,

the operation of cleaning up the NOx trap. The failure in the calibration was that every time

we made another operation in the NOx trap, that is the transformation of the NOx

accumulating in the NOx trap into nitrogen, we reduced the sulphur counter – the sulphur

accumulation variable – to zero. This is a stupid thing but the engineer forgot to make the

sulphation process in the engine.

This is just a calibration issue and has nothing to do with any kind of cheating or

manipulation. It is just an error made by one of the engineers doing the calibration.

1-117-0000

Chair. – I let you speak on because I think it is important to have that explanation.

We now move to the second round. We are running out of time and we do have a second part

of this meeting that is not without importance. So I will try to stick to the time. Please have

short questions and, if possible, short answers. Three minutes each and please stick to the

time.

1-118-0000

Ivo Belet (PPE). – I have an additional question on the calibration error. In your answer you

said that you are going to replace the NOx trap catalyst for more or less 11 000 cars. You say

that this has no impact on the engine or vehicle performance or reliability. Does it have any

impact on CO2 emissions?

1-119-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – We

decided – and first of all I will repeat that this concerns 11 000 cars – that, of course, we had

to change the calibration to fix the error we made so that the sulphation system worked

properly. It is much better if it works properly than if it does not work at all. This has nothing

to do with performance. The cars are otherwise working properly.

Secondly, why did we decide to change the NOx trap? Because the sulphation process is a

reversible process. When the NOx trap is loaded with sulphur, as I explained, every

1000 kilometres you do a clean-up operation. But the problem is that, when the NOx trap is

charged with too much sulphur and the operation is not working, you need several cycles,

several 1000 kilometres, in order to clean up completely.

18 13-07-2016

1-120-0000

Ivo Belet (PPE). – My question was whether there was a negative effect on the CO2

emissions. Does it not increase the CO2 emissions?

1-121-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – It has

nothing to do with CO2.

1-122-0000

Ivo Belet (PPE). – My second question is on the extra cost of the emission control system

and the difference in order to make the cars ready for the Euro 6d and RDE. You talk about

EUR 1 000, more or less, for that system. Is that in order to conform with the 80 mg

conformity factor 1 or conformity factor 2.1?

1-123-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – With

regard to the EUR 1000 figure, of course we are trying to target conformity factor 1, but this

is a kind of internal target. We are putting in the technology in order to try to achieve that, but

today we are not 100% sure that it is possible. This is a very clear and frank statement that I

am making today.

1-124-0000

Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – I am going to use both my allocated

speaking times, so six minutes. Seb Dance will do the same, it will be simpler.

In 2004 – I am returning to what some people knew about the effect of NOx and the gap

between normal conditions in the laboratory and normal conditions in real life, where the

public are breathing in NOx emissions. 2004: first report by the European Environment

Agency, which indicated that premature deaths may be linked to NOx emissions and linked to

vehicle emissions. In 2007, in the Regulation that you do not think is sufficiently clear, there

are all the same some points that are. I will read you Recital 15, which shows that, already in

2007, the Commission, the Member State councils – and hence, I imagine, the TCMV and all

the bodies involved in the work – knew about these problems. Recital 15 states that

‘Revisions may be necessary to ensure that real world emissions correspond to those

measured at type approval’ and that ‘portable emission measurement systems and the

introduction of the “not to exceed” regulatory concept should also be considered’. That was

nine years ago. May I continue, Madam Chair? And so, knowing that, which is in a document

that is a law, an EU law, and which is binding on everyone, there was also the TCMV seminar

in 2010 which said that regulations on testing under real conditions would be in place in two

years’ time. These tests will not, in the end, come about until 2017. But these problems were

known about.

Renault puts a lot of work in, particularly on electric vehicles, you said that in your

introduction. Why did you think that the EGR system should be kept in diesel vehicles,

knowing that it was not effective? Why did you not look ahead more, instead of waiting until

the Volkswagen case to announce your new anti-NOx plan?

1-125-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Listen, I

think everyone who knows something about engine technology knows that EGR is absolutely

essential. Without EGR you could not have today...

1-126-0000

Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Yes, sir, but EGR on its own is not.

And you have told us today that you are going to put two anti-pollution devices on some

vehicles and just one on others. So how do you chose? Is it a question of cost, what is it a

question of?

13-07-2016 19

Combating NOx pollution is just as important as combating CO2 pollution. You cannot offset

one against the other, we saw that just now.

1-127-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – Listen,

first of all, my company is very aware and very socially responsible and I can tell you that we

use the technologies once they are ready.

Yes, true, it is 10 years now, we can talk about a lot of things, what I can tell you is that, for

example, reliable PEMS measurements for passenger vehicles have only been ready now for a

few years (three to four years).

And still today, you can ask the authorities who carry out expert appraisals, measure

emissions, how reliable the systems used are?

We are really getting close to the point where regulations specify levels of precision that are

sometimes slightly incompatible with one another. I am not saying that they are completely

incompatible, but that they really need very specialised technologies.

And that has only been ready for a short while now. The NOx Trap and SCR systems do not

date back to the mists of time for passenger vehicles. You have to reckon on three to four

years to develop an engine, but you really have to look ahead for the technologies that will be

used so that they are still effective for at least the first five years of the engine’s life.

A diesel engine has to be operational for at least 10 years. Otherwise we quite simply cannot

recoup the cost of the investment, which to develop an engine family comes to more than a

billion and a half.

That is how you have to look at it to understand the industry’s cycles. After that, the only

thing I can tell you is that we are obviously aware, that it is our intention and part of what we

have announced recently, that even with current technologies we have investigated to see how

emissions can be improved now that we can measure them in real driving conditions and at

the same time as the technology is being prepared...

1-128-0000

Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – I have another question.

Do you intend to continue investing massively in research and development in order to keep

on producing lots of diesel vehicles or do you think that it is time to move on to other systems

and focus more on petrol-engined vehicles and electric and hybrid vehicles?

1-129-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – It is no

secret that we are not banking on any one technology just now, not least we have become a

global company and are having to operate on markets which have no diesel. Since there is no

diesel, we have to develop other technologies. It is clear that diesel, primarily because of the

difficulty of complying with the new standards and of the fact that the system will inevitably

become more expensive, will probably not be used as widely as it has been in the past. We are

also developing hybrid technologies and, above all, what to our mind is undoubtedly the

vehicle of the future, which will be electric. I can tell you that what you will see on the market

very soon are vehicles with much longer ranges and the new families of electric vehicles that

we are in the process of developing.

1-130-0000

Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – You have been asked a lot about technology and have just

spoken about it again. That means that you have opted for a particular technology and some of

20 13-07-2016

your competitors have opted for something else – SCR, for example – and you say that you

are taking measures to comply with emission standards. Are those measures in line with the

ones for SCR technology or do they involve something different? What will be the impact?

Did you say that there won’t really be any impact on consumption and consumers? What will

be the impact on cost? Do you think that you will be able, within the time limit, to comply

with the conformity factor laid down by the European Commission in October 2015?

1-131-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – We are

using SCR technology as well. We use it in heavier vehicles, for which it is more suitable, if

only because it doesn’t suffer from the drawbacks affecting light vehicles with SCR, for

which the problem is how to get them going at low temperatures. On urban sites with very

short runs in very light vehicles, it is hard to heat up the engine. That is why we have chosen

LNT technology for compact vehicles and SCR technology for heavy vehicles.

During the next stage, if we are to comply with the new standards and in particular the

conformity factors that we are aiming at, we shall inevitably have to use SCR technology, but,

even so, we don’t think that we shall be able to meet the standards simply by using SCR. It

will therefore be necessary to combine the two, SCR and NOX trap, in order to cover the

existing variety of driving conditions, which is much wider and a bit more difficult now in the

new R2 cycle.

Will we make it or won’t we? We are of course trying, but there is still an awful lot of work to

do when it comes to development, algorithms, and mastering the system and the tests under

all driving conditions. As I said a moment ago, we shall at least have the merit of being

clearer.

1-132-0000

Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – One more question: you get almost all of your vehicles

approved in France, but there are some cases in which you prefer the United Kingdom or

Italy. I should like to know the reasons for that choice. What makes you seek type approval in

one place rather than another?

1-133-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I shall

check when I get back to work: I was unaware that we had vehicles approved in the United

Kingdom or Italy. I shall look into it. As far as I know, we did have one vehicle approved in

Spain, but that was purely because of the workload of the body responsible for type approval

in France. But I shall check what you say.

1-134-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – I will use my two slots at once.

You mentioned that you had an internal target for a conformity factor of 1: an internal target

for a target that was agreed between the institutions nine years ago. You say that you need a

long lead time to get a return on your investment and that we need to understand the industrial

cycle. You had nine years to get to that conformity factor of 1, and the target only changed

last October because of the agreement in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles

(TMCV). What was your input in the intervening period to explain to the institutions – and

did you indeed explain to institutions – that the target of 2007 was unachievable?

1-135-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I am sorry

but I am not sure that a target can be considered as something that is decided. You can talk

today about targets in 2035: that does not mean that you have to start working right now in

developments to comply with these targets.

13-07-2016 21

1-136-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Sure, but the target is basically a legal level that was set. The 80 mg was

the legal limit set in 2007. That is nine years ago and it changed only in October, and you are

saying that you have an internal target, rather than a legal limit, of 80 mg. But, if you are

saying you are not even sure that is achievable, did you make that point back in 2007 – and

indeed in the intervening period – or was it just more or less by luck that the TCMV changed

that figure?

1-137-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No, that

has nothing to do with it. The kind of discussion currently taking place is about how we

should comply with a kind of figure in all kinds of conditions. This is what conformity

factor 1 means. So this is a simple message. We are discussing 1.2, etcetera, but we have to

try just to go to 1 because we think that, in some way, this should also be a challenge for our

technical teams to have a comfortable technical solution. That is all.

1-138-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Sure, but a limit is a limit. If I am driving at 90 km per hour in an 80

zone, I have to try to get to 80. I am only allowed to drive at 80.

1-139-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – But you

are talking about 10 years ago. I did not have a discussion of real driving emissions (RDE) in

mind 10 years ago. Maybe we could talk about the kind of homologation test that was carried

out then? I am sorry but I am pretty sure that, with regard to factor 1 RDE, we were not in that

contest 10 years ago.

1-140-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – OK. If I understand it, you are saying that the RDE procedure in 2007

was insufficient to enable you to get to a conformity factor of 1 by now. But has that RDE

procedure now changed everything? Is your internal target now a real target or is it an

aspiration?

1-141-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – No, the

internal target is very close to what is set today as the conformity criteria. When there is a

target of 80 mg, we are internally targeting 60. When the target is 250, we are targeting 200 in

order to have some margin of manoeuvre and to be able to say that we are robust enough in

terms of technical solutions.

1-142-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – So you are basically aiming for less than the legal limit?

1-143-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – We have

the obligation to do that.

1-144-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – That is encouraging to hear.

So what we have heard in this committee is that the combination of EGR, SCR and LNT will

produce results that are in line with the legal limit set in 2007: is that combination possible

and achievable?

1-145-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I think it

may be possible in certain conditions. Where we have doubt is in some extreme conditions,

which today include NRD. On certain points RD is very clear; on some other points there are

just boundary conditions, but inside those boundary conditions you can change. We are trying

just to see if in all – especially at the extreme limits of that – we can develop with this new

system of after-treatment and new algorithms, we can comply with it.

22 13-07-2016

1-146-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – And are the ideal boundary conditions expanding as your technology

improves? Would that be fair to say? Because in answer to question 11, for instance, you say

that you are looking to expand the thermal window to 5°C to 60°C. What has changed to

enable that?

1-147-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – There are

some components that are changing because there are some new materials, for valves and so

on, that allow us to go further, and especially for sensors. Sensors are a key technology. In the

past, for the first NOx trap systems we had, for instance, the accuracy of the sensors – at least

the sensors that we were using at that time – was not good enough to make a good regulation.

When you do not have good information coming from sensors, you just have to put some

additional margins compared to the physical limits of the system. So sensors are improving,

as are algorithms and some components, especially those related to the oil systems in the

engine. All in all, we are going even further in the usage of the current systems and of course,

preparing the next step.

1-148-0000

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Mr Gascon Abellan, you have heard plenty of languages today,

but not Polish.

My question is this: when new cars are tested they either meet the requirements or they don’t,

but it is certain that with prolonged usage their parts will eventually wear out and have to be

changed. The brake blocks and many other parts have to be replaced. You have standard time

scales for when various parts have to be changed. Do you also have a benchmark for the

volume of emissions that should be given off by a car after, say, two hundred thousand or six

hundred thousand kilometres? Does that benchmark change, and if so, how? Are you aware

that it gets worse as cars get older? That is my first question.

1-150-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. –

Generally, speaking, when we devise a post-treatment system, we don’t do it for components

with absolutely no mileage, but we follow the current rules and take the 160 000 kilometre

mark. In other words, when, for example, we are developing an NOx trap system for a

catalyst, the catalysts that we use, instead of being brand-new, are old enough to reflect the

state that a catalyst might be in at 160 000 km. That’s the condition. So the way in which we

already allow for the effect of ageing is in accordance with the law.

1-151-0000

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Now for my second question. When you go to a groceries store,

the products there have a use-by date. Can we say the same for cars: that after a particular

distance – say, a few thousand kilometres – the car will no longer meet the appropriate

standards, and so it should be retired from use even if you can still drive it? Could that

happen?

1-152-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – That, if

anything, is more of a political decision. No, some roadworthiness tests are operational...

1-153-0000

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Yes, but nothing the European Parliament does could surprise

me any more.

1-154-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I don’t

know what to say. It might be a good idea, at least for the industry. It helps us if the market is

a bit more dynamic.

13-07-2016 23

1-155-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Thank you. Mr Gascon Abellan, I am over here. You noted that

Article 5(2) of the 2007 regulation is not clear enough, that it does not describe precisely how

it should be implemented, and that ‘normal use’, for example, is not defined. And you also

said earlier that, as a car manufacturer, you really need a system which is not open to

interpretation. So my question now is: Have you ever noticed motor manufacturers having a

problem because the law is not clear enough? That is my first question.

1-156-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I don’t go

to committee or comitology meetings. So I can’t say whether that has been mentioned.

1-157-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Yes, of course, sorry – I know you were not part of the political

negotiations. But for someone who is trying to obey the law, if they don’t know what the law

is saying, it must be important to ask: What are we supposed to do now? Did you do that, or

did you tell your political negotiators to say that?

1-158-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I don’t

know, but that is now the situation, so we really ought to do it.

1-159-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – OK, I realise that. All right.

OK, then, another question: No – I realise, of course you have to know what the law says.

And you want to comply with it. And if it isn’t clear, that is a problem for you. And then you

have to see – it is in your interest to see – how to make it clear.

Another question: The European standards are set in a different way, Euro 5 and 6 are based

on maximum permitted emission limit values, including limits per car. In the USA it is

different. You also sell cars there. And US 2 and 3 are based on the fleet average. Is that

easier? Would it lead to cleaner cars if we had a similar system in Europe in this case, instead

of the regulation that we have? Would it be more flexible, would it create more of an

incentive to get cleaner cars? Because we want clean cars which serve to meet the climate

targets and don’t make people ill.

1-160-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I can’t go

into too many details about the American ideas, quite simply because we don’t sell vehicles in

that part of the world and I am not familiar with the American rules on conditions. What I do

know – because I have some idea how they work – is that the American rules are a bit more

precise, and that’s an advantage. What is more, AES and BES procedures all used to be

clearer: the limits to be placed on the systems being used would be negotiated from the outset,

and the regulator and the manufacturers would therefore, at some stage, enter into

consultations about their conformity and acceptability.

1-161-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Yes, thank you. OK. My last question: Do you think that RDE

as they are currently being debated in the Fourth Package will really make things completely

clear? ACEA says that it will make them 95% clear. Do you agree?

1-162-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – That’s

what I’m hoping for. At all events, we – and that includes myself as a senior manager

responsible not just for engineering, but also for the company as a whole – support the idea of

fully developing the new conformity framework, RDE, and we think that action along those

lines would greatly benefit the image of the automotive industry, which will seem much more

transparent in the eyes of consumers.

24 13-07-2016

1-163-0000

Sven Schulze (PPE). – Mr Gascon, I have a question which again relates to cooperation with

the authorities on the type approval of vehicles. We have heard here in this committee on

several occasions that proving the presence of defeat devices is rather complicated, and may

even not be possible. We have heard this from NGOs, we have also heard it – and not just in

this committee – from the relevant authorities. And I am wondering: When SCR technology is

applied, an AdBlue tank containing urea is often installed, because there is no other way of

doing it.

I once undertook the task of looking at all type approved vehicles in Europe that use AdBlue,

and discovered that there is a massive variation in tank size, between eight and nearly 40

litres. I am an engineer myself and I am convinced that the consumption must always be about

the same when AdBlue is used. And I have observed in your long-distance vehicles, where

you use AdBlue, that you use a 20-litre tank.

My question is this: Talking to the authorities during type approval, didn’t it ever occur to

anyone from the authorities’ side to ask why these tank sizes vary so much? Why do you use

20 litres, for example? I am asking because one of the first questions a car purchaser who has

to use AdBlue will ask is: How often do I have to change this AdBlue, this urea? And so I

wonder why auto manufacturers can install a very small-size tank, and why has no-one in the

authorities noticed? Because if I reduce the inflow of AdBlue, that means I am emitting that

much more NOx. Has any representative of the authorities ever asked you about that?

1-164-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – Deciding

on the tank size involves a trade-off among several considerations. Firstly, filling a urea tank

means one more thing to do, and we do have to think of customers, whom we must endeavour

to disturb as little as possible while they are driving.

Obviously, from the customers’ point of view, it would be ideal to have a completely

straightforward vehicle that wouldn’t need anything else doing to it. So the size is chosen to

avoid the need to add more urea whenever the vehicle is filled up diesel oil, and what gets

decided that the urea tank should have to be replenished at every tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth

refuelling. The key factor is user-friendliness.

Secondly, fitting a 30 litre tank means making a vehicle 30 kilos heavier...

1-165-0000

Sven Schulze (PPE). – Thank you, I am familiar with the subject. I just wanted to ask: Has

any representative of the authorities mentioned this causal link to you, the fact that, if you use

very small tanks, it is just possible that AdBlue is not being injected throughout the whole

driving cycle, for the whole driving time?

1-166-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – The

answer is no, at least as far as I am concerned. Some engineers talk directly to the authorities,

but I don’t do so myself. The smaller the tank, the more often customers will have to refill it,

but I have never pronounced on anything like that.

1-167-0000

Sven Schulze (PPE). OK, then a second question, approaching the matter from a slightly

different direction: As Renault – and also, I am sure, when you are producing Dacias etc. –

you work together with suppliers who develop software for you. I assume you don’t make

everything yourselves. And I would just be interested to hear, from an industry representative:

what is the level of communication or exchange of information with suppliers? Is a

manufacturer like Renault 100% informed about what the supplier is supplying? Or could it

13-07-2016 25

be that you don’t fully understand, down to every last detail, what it is the supplier has

supplied?

1-168-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – In the

first place we, like the whole of the industry, buy components from different suppliers; I

shan’t name names, but they are familiar to you all. These suppliers have the task of

developing what are termed the lower software layers. Generally this means the operating

system and the control system for the electronics, but at Renault we are responsible for all the

driving strategies. In most cases, therefore, we lay down our own strategies and the suppliers

carry them out. Sometimes suppliers will suggest strategies, but we are the ones who approve

them.

1-169-0000

Sven Schulze (PPE). – OK, to sum up once again: an OEM like you cannot, would never say:

‘We did not understand every last implication of what the supplier supplied us with, and we

could possibly have fallen into a trap.’ That could never happen because you are always fully

in command of the information.

1-170-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – It might

be arrogant for me to say that it couldn’t happen, but yes, it’s extremely unlikely.

1-171-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much. What is the thermal window, where

you have full operation in your cars of brakes and seat belts?

1-172-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – There is

no thermal window, in my opinion.

1-173-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – No, that is because in the legislation it said that brakes and

seatbelts need to operate under normal use. So why is there for brakes and seatbelts a very

clear definition and suddenly you have problems when it is about reduction of emissions?

1-174-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – With the

existing technologies there is no thermal constraint on the use of seat-belts and brakes.

1-175-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – I have to disappoint you. We had technical experts in previous

hearings on all these reduction tools. They said there are no constraints for these technologies

either, so it may be good to check with them.

But maybe let us just go to another important point which was interesting during this hearing.

You said this is all new, but maybe, to be very clear, the limit that was agreed upon under

normal use was agreed in 2006. In that same regulation they talk about the PEMS that should

be developed. The JRC did tests on Euro 3 and Euro 4 cars with PEMS in 2007 and 2008. So

what makes you say that all these developments are so new and what have you done in those

10 years to make sure that you can comply with these limits?

1-176-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – Sorry, but

I don’t agree. Reliable operational PEMS technologies for large personal-use vehicles haven’t

been around since 2007. Sorry.

1-177-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – I am saying that the JRC was doing those tests in 2007 and

2008. What have you done in communication with the JRC to make your complaints clear?

26 13-07-2016

I assume that you would say that PEMS is not ready yet but the JRC was doing the testing in

2007. So how did the communication between you and the JRC go in those days?

1-178-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice-President Engineering, Renault Group. – I’m sorry

to say, but I don’t have a clue. I wasn’t even in my present job in 2007, so I have no idea

whether what you’re saying is true or not. Sorry, but this is your version.

1-179-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Well, I assume that the company that is being tested is having

communication. Could you share the communications that took place in those years between

you, as a company – not you personally but your company – and the JRC, because it is

important for us to know what kind of discussions on the PEMS testing was happening with

the JRC? Could you share that information?

1-180-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – I am sorry

to tell you that I cannot answer you because I do not know. I am sorry.

1-181-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – I think Renault existed in 2007 and was tested, so could you

share that information?

1-182-0000

Gaspar Gascon Abellan, Executive Vice President Engineering, Renault Group. – You

know, I have close to me people who are linked to public relations and intervention in

different bodies of the Community. We will check what you say, but I cannot answer you

today because I have no clue.

1-183-0000

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Okay. Could you share then that information once you have

found it, because I do think you will have had communication with the JRC?

1-184-0000


check.

1-185-0000

Chair. – Thank you very much. We have another question that you will see and verify, and

maybe there are some extra questions in writing that we will send to you.

This concludes this part of the hearing with the people from Renault. A special thanks to Mr

Gascon Abellan for being here, for accepting our invitation and for his answers.

1-186-0000

Colleagues, it is high time to start the second part and I warmly welcome the people from

Volkswagen, who have quite similar names so I try to get this right: there is Mr Eiser and Mr

Eichler, both are Head of Power Train, one for the brand and the other for the group. And next

to me is Mr Eichhorn, you are the Chief Technology Officer of the Group? Yes. Thank you

very much for accepting our invitation. We have, as you can imagine, been looking forward to

this hearing, in particular because you are, unfortunately I have to say, one of the reasons this

committee has been installed, but I think only good things can come of a good inquiry.

I would like to remind Members that Mr Eichhorn and his engineers may not be in a position

to answer questions that relate directly to the ongoing legal procedures that Volkswagen is

involved in. Members do know that. I leave it up to you whether you ask the questions, but I

wanted to indicate that beforehand.

13-07-2016 27

Mr Eichhorn has asked me for five extra minutes for his introduction, and I think it’s

reasonable to do that, so I give you 15 minutes to do the introduction and then we go to the

members of the committee.

1-187-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Thank you

very much, Madam Chair. I will speak in German to make it easier for the interpreters and for

the native German speakers.

Madam Chair, Vice-Chairs, Honourable Members, Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, many

thanks for inviting Volkswagen to attend this committee. We will be happy to answer your

questions, although I have myself only been back at Volkswagen and in this post for three

months. By doing this we hope to make our contribution to this committee’s work. Personally

I can assure you that Volkswagen is aware of its role and its responsibility. It is in

Volkswagen’s interest to support this committee’s investigation work.

Ladies and gentlemen, an enormous mistake was made at Volkswagen. As you all know, rules

and ethical standards were disregarded in the development of the EA 189 diesel engine for the

Euro 5 standard, which went into production in 2007. This misconduct goes against

everything Volkswagen stands for. It has damaged our greatest asset, people’s trust in our

company and our products. The crisis has shaken Volkswagen and its workers – including

420 000 in Europe alone, plus many more with suppliers, dealers and workshops. We are

working very hard to ensure it is fully investigated. This is an important contribution to

regaining lost trust and building a new, better Volkswagen. We are very well aware that it will

be a long journey.

We cannot undo what has happened in the past. What we can do is to deal responsibly with it

and ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again. That is my task, among other things.

In concrete terms this means: first of all, finding good solutions for our customers; secondly,

investigating thoroughly how it was possible for this misconduct to take place; and thirdly,

learning from the mistakes of the past while looking to the future, and taking the correct

decisions for the company and our workers. Over the past ten months, we have been working

tirelessly on these three tasks.

On the first point: finding good solutions for our customers. Worldwide 11 million vehicles

have been affected by this Diesel issue, 8.5 million of them in Europe. The good news is that

all the affected vehicles in Europe can be repaired.

The implementation of the technical solutions for the affected diesel vehicles in Europe began

in January 2016 and is now fully under way under the supervision of and in agreement with

the German Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (Federal Motor Transport Authority, KBA). About half of

these vehicles – and this is breaking news – are now cleared for retrofitting, that is around

four million vehicles. They can be repaired immediately. To the best of our knowledge, the

recall process for all affected models will also be under way by the end of the year.

Customers will not be disadvantaged by the retrofitting. The KBA has confirmed, for all the

model variants cleared so far, that there will be no deterioration in terms of fuel consumption,

CO2, NOx, driving performance, noise or engine performance. Independent tests are even

showing that for some models there will be a drop in fuel consumption. For customers in

Europe, their cars will have to spend 30 to 60 minutes in the garage; appropriate alternative

mobility is guaranteed. Independent institutions in Germany, such as Schwacke, have noted

that our vehicles do not lose any extra value as a result. I should also like to stress that at no

point was the driveability or safety of our vehicles affected. We have also declared that we are

prepared to expressly waive our right to plead the limitation period until 31 December 2017 as

28 13-07-2016

regards the software installed in vehicles with the affected engine type EA 189. This waiver

also applies to vehicles for which the guarantee period has in fact already expired.

We will do all in our power to carry out the recall in a way which is as rapid, professional and

satisfactory for our customers as possible. We will devise tailor-made solutions for this

purpose for each market.

Compared to Europe, unfortunately, the situation in the USA is totally different. Following

the settlement agreement with the US authorities, VW will have to pay out some

USD 15 billion in the USA. The reason for this agreement is as follows: in the USA we would

of course have liked to offer every customer as full a repair as possible, just as in Europe.

However, in the USA an adequate solution does not exist for every model. You see, the

situations in the USA and Europe are fundamentally different, even for individual customers.

For this reason, in the USA, we arrived at a specific solution with the US authorities.

On the second point: investigating thoroughly how it was possible for this misconduct to take

place. We ourselves have every interest in finding out all we can about the causes and about

who was responsible. Nothing will be fudged or covered up in our investigation. Only in this

way can we learn the right lessons from this situation and take precautions to ensure that

nothing of the like ever happens again at Volkswagen. We have already taken the relevant

steps in consequence, renewing structures, optimising processes and restructuring the

organisation, as well as appointing new executive staff. We are working to ensure that no

stone is left unturned in the investigation, both internally with our review and externally with

the help of the law firm of Jones Day, appointed by the supervisory board. A great deal of

progress has been made with these investigations. Jones Day reckon that they will be finished

by the end of the year. However, for legal reasons we are not able to publish an interim report.

Our response has also included action in relation to our executive board, and not just in the

form of replacing staff. For example, we have created a new post on the executive with

responsibility for Legal Affairs and Integrity, which will be held by Dr Hohmann-Dennhardt,

a former judge at the German Constitutional Court.

On the third point: learning from the mistakes of the past while looking to the future, and

taking the correct decisions for the company and our workers. Learning the right lessons is

just as important as the investigation itself. Internally, Volkswagen is doing this with new

structures, ways of thinking and processes. But we are also doing it with our products. We

have decided that emission tests in our company will in future, as a matter of principle, be

checked externally and independently. Furthermore, random tests will be introduced,

simulating real conditions, on emissions behaviour on the road.

That there are differences between behaviour on the chassis dynamometer (in the lab) and on

the road has been well known to the public and to the relevant authorities for a long time. This

is documented inter alia in the Handbook on Emission Factors issued by the German Federal

Environmental Agency (Deutsches Umweltbundesamt). Fully-fledged appropriate technology

for reliably measuring the emissions of cars on the road has only been available since around

2013. So for the future we need clear rules which are ambitious while allowing the European

auto industry to remain leaders in the tough arena of global competition. This is why we

strongly support relevant initiatives from the political sphere, such as RDE and WLTP.

On the technical issues: optimising the internal combustion engine. It must be remembered

that technical developments have progressed still further in recent years. While some of the

criticism levelled at failings in our Euro 5 engines is justified, I would like to state clearly that

according to official measurements by Germany, France and the UK, as well as a large

number of independent measurements, the affected vehicles, containing the affected software,

are among the cleaner models in comparison to the competition. Our new Euro 6 engines are

13-07-2016 29

some of the cleanest anywhere compared to the competition. In some cases they are already as

clean on the road as they are at the acceptance test. I would like to stress this for the simple

reason that the internal combustion engine is still important. Modern diesel and petrol engines

are part of the solution aimed at permitting clean, affordable individual mobility in future too.

We are still working hard at improving the environmental compatibility of our diesel and

petrol engines. I can already announce a milestone on this road: we will in future be equipping

the new VW petrol engines with the petrol engine particle filter. We will thus be reducing

particulate emissions by another 90% (measured chiefly by number of particles, not by mass).

This could mean up to seven million VW vehicles a year being equipped with this technology

by 2022. It is important that the available technologies are also transferred to the road. The

most effective means of improving air quality in towns, besides traffic flow regulation, is

therefore to replace the European vehicle fleet as quickly as possible with modern Euro 6

vehicles. If you want to attain the future CO2 targets, you need modern diesel engines. They

are efficient, reliable and affordable and will therefore be with us for quite some time.

Vehicles with internal combustion engines will still account for around half of new vehicles

even in 2030. But that also means that by then the other half will be electric vehicles. The

electric mobility threshold will thus already have been passed some time before.

So we are working very hard to promote electric mobility. That, too, is one of my main tasks.

By 2025 the VW Group will be putting more than 30 electric vehicle models on the market.

We expect to be selling some 2 to 3 million electric-only vehicles per year by then. This will

account for a significant proportion of our total worldwide sales, an estimated 25%.

Accordingly we are committing ourselves very heavily to this and have launched an

investment programme worth billions of euros. The expansion of electric mobility, which we

are planning and which the politicians are calling for, will ultimately be coupled to the

massive expansion of battery and battery cell production. We will examine all strategic

options thoroughly in order to open up battery technology as a new sphere of expertise for

Volkswagen.

Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Members, The mobility of tomorrow is a significant topic for our

society today. The VW Group will be a major participant in this. Our CEO, Matthias Müller,

recently presented our new 2025 strategy on this topic. What we have to do now is to take the

right decisions for the future. The motor industry is faced with wide-ranging challenges:

globalisation, digitalisation, emissions reduction. The VW Group has set itself ambitious

targets in all these areas. The European motor industry is and remains a key industry for the

EU. Over 12.2 million jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the motor industry. Our firms

operate not just globally but also at SME level and produce over 18.4 million vehicles per

year in the EU. At the same time we see ourselves as driving innovation to guarantee

Europe’s place as a centre of production.

European auto manufacturers invest some EUR 45 million a year in research and development

and are thus clearly in the forefront of research investments into European competition. This

is why I am calling on you to help us, with sensible and well thought out legislation, to take

the correct decisions for the future. In the interest of Better Regulation it is important that

legislation takes account of the principles devised by experts in CARS21 or CARS2020, for

example as regards the timely and professional definition of measurement procedures, limit

values and implementation dates. Only in this way can prosperity, employment and industrial

value creation continue to prevail in Europe.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

30 13-07-2016

1-189-0000

Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – Madam Chair, in the answers given to his questionnaire,

Doctor Eichhorn speaks of defeat devices and the cycle detection measure. My question,

Dr Eichhorn, is whether the software in question was needed in order to meet the European

emissions limits during the type approval process.

1-190-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – The

software used in Europe was not necessary to achieve the type approval values. The software

detects that it is in a lab testing situation and activates different operating modes. We are

swapping this software across the board in all vehicles and removing this function, this piece

of software. In agreement with the authorities we have a clear approval procedure whereby

technical services, under supervision and on the instructions of the KBA, establish

independently for each engine-transmission combination that performance, consumption,

emissions, etc., and even noise levels, are exactly the same for the customer both before and

after retrofitting. So the customer gets exactly the same vehicle that he originally ordered. We

are able to rule out differences in performance.

1-191-0000

Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – You say that one cannot turn back the clock – which is true –

and that you are seeking solutions for the 11 000 customers affected in Europe.

Do you think that your company, Volkswagen, provided an adequate response after learning

what had happened by, firstly, supporting enquiries and then proposing measures to prevent

this from happening again – given that, as you described it, the solution in the United States

and in Europe differed and that this could lead to frustration among European customers.

1-192-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – To prevent

these things happening again, firstly we have on the one hand an internal review, a report, to

look into how this came about. This is still pending. However, an interim report already

exists, which identifies 31 errors that were made. The two gentlemen who are with me today,

among others, are responsible for ensuring that procedures are in place to prevent a

recurrence. These things happened because in many areas the 'many eyes principle' was not

complied with as it should have been. We are turning all those things off, to prevent this

happening again.

We are also currently looking into what happened where. This is also the objective of the

review report I mentioned earlier, and of the investigations by the law firm of Jones Day. We

have also reported the culprits to the prosecuting authorities so that they can be investigated

and held to account. As I mentioned earlier, we have already suspended or replaced some of

the staff who may have been responsible. A moment ago someone from the floor asked why I

am here when I have only been in this job for three months. It is because my predecessors are

no longer available. You can see how consistently and toughly Volkswagen has been acting

here.

We are also working to ensure that in future certification is more often carried out externally,

so as to prevent this happening in future.

You also asked what we are doing for our customers. We wanted to restore all our customers'

vehicles, worldwide, to the state in which they purchased them and wanted them to be in. We

are able to do this 100% for our European customers. Unfortunately we can't do this for our

American customers because not only is the emissions legislation different, but the vehicles

are different and so is the legal system. So I am afraid we are not able to restore to all

American customers the vehicle they purchased. That is why we are putting this scheme,

which is costing us 15 billion, into operation there. We are able to do this for Europe, so

13-07-2016 31

European customers are in a better position than Americans, as they are getting the vehicle

they purchased.

1-193-0000

Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – Very quickly, do you feel that the current legislative

framework is enough to guarantee legal certainty and at the same time to enable compliance

with it?

1-194-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – We believe

that, particularly with the additional features – with RDE and new type approval guidelines –

this can also be guaranteed in Europe.

1-195-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to

the representatives of Volkswagen for being here, I really appreciate that. I would like to ask

you to answer as briefly as possible. My first question could be answered by a simple ‘yes’ or

‘no’, and that is: Was Volkswagen warned already in 2007 by Bosch that the intended use of

the software provided by Bosch could be illegal?

1-196-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. –

Unfortunately, this is one of those things where the investigations are still ongoing and I

cannot comment on that.

1-197-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – OK, thank you. Then my other question is based on

your written answers. In question 6b you claim that high engine and turbocharger power is

one of the extreme situations that may justify a defeat device worsening the emission

performance of the vehicle. Why don’t you simply cut the maximum engine power to enable

permanent functionality of the emission control, instead of doing it the other way around?

And my second question on this technical issue is that defeat devices are permissible for

engine protection reasons. However, a catalytic converter is not part of the engine, and EGR

pipes and turbochargers are not essential for the operation of the engine. How can you claim

that these non-engine parts are covered by the legal defeat device exemptions?

1-198-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – As we are

using a wide range of techniques to get low emissions, the first and best step of course is to

reduce what we call the raw emissions, that the engine produces in the first place. This we do

by the combustion process etc. and with this we have improved over many years. The EGR

system is a vital part of that, and it is a part of the engine because it because it drives the

engine’s raw performance and is part of the engine itself. The exhaust after-treatment, the

emission control system in the closer sense, is in this context the LNT or the SCR, and of

course the DOC as well and all those systems. Thus on your question about defeat devices, we

do not consider the software a defeat device, yet we have agreed with the German authorities

to do the comprehensive recall and remove this piece of software.

1-199-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – What about the high engine and turbocharger power?

You didn’t answer that first question. Because you could also use less power because then

you can still use all the emission abatement technology.

1-200-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand – When our engines

are assigned to different torque and performance classes, the turbocharger is also adjusted for

optimal operation. This means that engines with lower performance and lower torque also

have a specific turbocharger, which of course also needs to operate safely under extreme

conditions, e.g. at high altitudes. The car needs to start properly in all conditions and also

32 13-07-2016

needs to provide a traction surplus when the customer requires it. So we can't just exclude the

high-powered vehicles, just take out the big turbochargers, but the small turbochargers also

need to be...

(The speaker was interrupted)

1-201-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Sorry to interrupt you, but you can simply add less

power in the engine in order to still be able to use the emission abatement technology. Yes or

no: it’s a decision taken by you as a car manufacturer.

1-202-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand – Unfortunately it's

not that simple, because, as I said, the turbocharger is adjusted to the size of the engine. In

other words, if you have a large turbocharger in the engine and just cap the performance, the

response of the turbocharger is no longer optimal. So you really need a turbocharger for the

power and specific performance category of the engine which is exactly calibrated to that

engine, and it needs to be able always to deliver the optimum performance within its

parameters.

1-203-0000

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – OK I’m sorry to interrupt you again but I have one final

question and that is on your written answer on 6a, where you state – and I guess your legal

experts have written this – that ‘it is necessary for every tested vehicle to recognise that it is

conducted within the emission test’, in other words, it is necessary for a car to know whether

it is being tested or not. You just said in your answer to Mr Zalba that you are changing all the

cars that have this recognising software. How can you explain that? Why does the car have to

know whether it’s in the lab or on the real street? Can you simply explain it? And not only by

stating that the legislation is unclear, because I assume that you have never complained about

unclear legislation to either national or European authorities.

1-204-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand – To operate a vehicle

on a chassis dynamometer, certain assistance systems need to be switched off. Think of a 4-

wheel-drive system undergoing an emissions test on a rear-wheel drive dynamometer. Here

too the vehicle needs to recognise that the front axle is not being powered, and the various

systems - safety or auxiliary systems - have to respond accordingly. In other words it is not a

bad thing for a vehicle to recognise that it is being used in dynamometer mode. It only

becomes bad if this recognition is used to manipulate emissions values. And we are certain

that we will rule this out in future.

1-205-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group – I should perhaps add:

When a blower in a lab test is recognised as an obstacle and a brake assist system is activated

- and that would happen in the lab test -, when an ESP system recognises that the wheels are

rotating at implausible ratios to each other, the ESP system would be activated. In other

words, the more modern a car is, and the more assistance and protection functions are

activated, the more it needs to know what status it is in, so that it does not activate any of

these emergency or customer protection modes in a test. As my colleague said, this

knowledge must not be abused, but the vehicle does need to have this knowledge.

1-206-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Thank you very much. I will return the question to Mr Eichhorn. I

appreciate very much your statement and answers so far. I have some maybe simple questions

looking for some simple answers. Your company works in both the European and the US

markets, correct? In the US, in passenger vehicles, you sell mostly petrol engines and in

Europe diesel engines. Could you briefly state why this is the case?

13-07-2016 33

1-207-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – The simple

reason is that in Europe diesel is much more popular with customers on account of its

performance, its fuel economy and its driving profile, and that for this very reason diesel is

easily available. Furthermore, of course, fuel prices in the USA are generally much lower, so

that fuel economy is less of a burning issue there. This is what motivates customers.

We have tried for a long time to make diesel more popular in America as well, because the

long distance suitability, the fuel consumption, and particularly the torque curve that modern

turbo diesel engines have, are very attractive for American customers.

1-208-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – OK, if I may interrupt you, then my next question: is there also a

difference in regulation in the European and in the US markets?

1-209-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – There are

very significant differences. In fact one can say that there are more differences than there are

points in common. One essential point is that the test procedure is totally different. In Europe

we use the NEDC, which you all know...

(The speaker was interrupted)

No, please let me answer.

1-210-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – I may interrupt again …But I got the answer that I wanted. If, if I

may continue. The regulation in the US is also more strict for quality than in Europe. Is this

correct or not?

1-211-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – For air

quality that depends very much on which component of air quality you are referring to.

1-212-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – NOx.

1-213-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – For NOx

the air quality levels in the US are no stricter than in Europe. The exhaust emission levels are

lower, depending on which thing you are operating in, they can be as low as 50 mg per mile in

a completely different test, whereas in Europe we are operating in the somewhat dated NEDC

which suggests or dictates a particularly frugal style of driving.

1-214-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – OK, now in the US, with the Environmental Protection, Agency,

when they set the standards and they do the tests, what kind of input does your company have

in that process?

1-215-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Like all the

rest of the auto industry, we have some input. The Environmental Protection Agency and the

other agencies carry out expert hearings and they go through a very strict, well-documented

process of arriving at both stringent and realistic standards.

1-216-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – OK and how does your participation in the US regulatory system

differ from the process in Europe? Are you more involved in the European regulatory

framework?

34 13-07-2016

1-217-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – In the

European framework we are largely involved through ACEA – and you will be speaking with

my colleague from the ACEA tomorrow, I think – and on a national level through the national

associations, the BDA here in Germany but others as well. It is somewhat more remote than it

is in the US, although of course we have associations in the US as well.

1-218-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – I don’t understand. When you say it is more remote in Europe…?

1-219-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Because it

goes more mostly through the associations.

1-220-0000

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Because it goes through the associations. And to the best of your

knowledge, when the Euro 5 and 6 standards were adopted in 2007, were the European

regulators aware of the discrepancy between NOx emissions in the lab and on the road? The

regulators?

1-221-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – I do not

know how the regulators came by their information. The manual on emission factors and

measurements, which I mentioned earlier, and measurements by the JRC from that time, have

always shown that the lab test generates reproducible values on the basis of the driving mode,

and on the basis of the framework conditions etc. for the operating field described there. That

is what it is intended for, and that is what these tests are intended for. The regulators will have

been aware that other values could arise in operation outside the regulation tests. I assume

they were aware of this.

1-222-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on your response to question 6a

regarding the vehicle detecting when it’s on a test cycle. I understand your explanation here is

that you need a certain level of conformity in order for the tests to produce accurate results

against previous tests. Surely you would accept that there is a difference between a car that

recognises it is being in a test cycle for conformity purposes and a car that recognises it’s not

in a test cycle and therefore switches off certain emissions abatement technology? Surely that

cannot be acceptable?

1-223-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – As we said,

and as you have now repeated, it is necessary for a vehicle to recognise that it is in a chassis

dynamometer situation, to avoid things happening that would make the testing impossible. It

was not the intention that this recognition capability should be used to make the emissions

worse, to influence the emissions control system. That is why we are removing this link from

our Euro 5 cars, which are in fact the only ones to have it fitted.

Maybe my first answer to Mr Zalba was not quite clear: For the reasons stated, the vehicle

remains able to recognise that it is on a chassis dynamometer, so as to enable engine testing to

take place. However, this recognition is not used - is no longer used - to influence emissions

in any way, to influence the emission control system in any way. As you have seen from the

published reports....

1-224-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – … so essentially…

1-225-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – … this

does not in any way affect the behaviour of the vehicles on the road.

13-07-2016 35

1-226-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – So, in normal use, it’s unaffected in normal use, that’s what you're

saying? There are no conditions under which the car will recognise it’s not in test conditions,

therefore the abatement technology will be operating at full capacity at all times in normal

use. Is that what you’re saying?

1-227-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – The after-

treatment systems operate in a very wide area. We have been able to extend this area

considerably over the various generations of engines, and we are particularly proud that our

modern Euro 6 engines are among the best in this respect. Of course there are still situations -

very high or low temperatures, trailer towing, turbocharger protection which was mentioned

earlier...

1-228-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – … OK, sure…

1-229-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – … in which

Article 5(5) is applied.

1-230-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – The temperature one is interesting. Incidentally, do you have a

temperature window? What is Volkswagen’s temperature window for abatement technology?

1-231-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand – There is no need in

principle for a temperature window for exhaust after-treatment. We will increase or decrease

the EGR rate in line with certain operating conditions: the new Euro 6 designs work down to -

25̊ C. So we have a very wide temperature window there with a very small impact on raw

emissions and also on tailpipe emissions. In addition we have also significantly further

improved our cooling system - I mean the EGR cooler - and are now really able with our new

Euro 6 designs to recirculate exhaust over a temperature range that is typical both in Europe

and in the USA.

1-232-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – OK, OK, fine. That’s interesting…

1-233-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – If I could

just say one more thing about this...

1-234-0000

Seb Dance (S&D). – I don’t have much time and there’s one more question I want to want to

put to you if I may. You say in your submission that you can’t draw any conclusions as to

what’s happened in the European market from what we know has happened in the US, and the

only basis for this – in fact you say it’s the most important, you say ‘most importantly’ –

European legislation did not contain an obligation on the manufacturers to disclose so-called

auxiliary emission control devices. Are you telling us basically that the omission of the

requirement to disclose these devices is the only reason we can’t draw a conclusion that the

same thing has happened in Europe?

1-235-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – In

American law it has been mandatory to declare what’s called the ‘basic emission control

device’ and the ‘auxiliary emission control device’ for a very long time. With RDE, with the

latest level regulation, that is also the same in Europe, and it was introduced on trucks in

Europe a long time ago. This gives both us and the regulators and the type approval

authorities much better knowledge of where we stand.

36 13-07-2016

Had we had something like the AES that we are getting now, many of the questions that now

have to be drawn out from the software with great difficulty would actually have been

answered in the type approval process – as is the case in the US, but this is fairly new and we

welcome this. However, I must tell you that this is not a simple matter for a modern engine,

that we are working on the list of the AES and its full, detailed description runs to 400 pages.

1-236-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Mr Eichhorn, I was on the supervisory board of Audi for many

years, I was responsible for the German industry, I am now a German MEP, and the VW

scandal is the worst thing I can ever remember happening in the German car industry in recent

years. Although I am not responsible for it, I am ashamed. I know you are not to blame either,

but could you describe what the feeling is among your colleagues? Are they ashamed too?

1-237-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Mr Henkel,

you are of course a familiar name to us, and to me. I am glad to be here in this meeting with

you.

Yes, we are ashamed, and - as I tried to make clear in my opening speech - we deeply

apologise for what happened here. This is why we are dealing with it so forcefully.

I don't know if, when you were on the supervisory board of Audi or elsewhere, you ever

experienced such a lot of board members resigning at once as we have had recently. This is

why I myself returned to Volkswagen, to help with what I may call the clearing-up operation

and to help shape the future. This is something that affects our whole organisation very

deeply, and many of our workers are rather demoralised, particularly those in engine

development who had nothing to do with this and who are now being regarded as the culprits

by their colleagues.

1-238-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Thank you, I understand, and it gives me a little hope. But you

yourself pointed out that a number of your colleagues - your predecessors and so forth - are no

longer working for the company. A lot of people at Volkswagen must have known about this.

I don't know how many. What fascinates me is that there was no-one who passed this

knowledge on to the company's top management. Can you explain this to me? What the

atmosphere in the company must have been like if something like this was kept under wraps

for so long and it took an American organisation to find it out?

1-239-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Well, the

manipulation of the software was clearly done very cleverly. I mentioned earlier the four eyes

principle - the many eyes principle - which we are now proposing to reintroduce and step up

there. From my marginal experience with vehicle software - less so for engine software - I

must say that this is a highly complex topic. In a top-of-the-range vehicle there are more lines

of code than in an Airbus, and if a worker is really determined to hide his activities there, he

does have opportunities to do this.

1-240-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – But Mr Eichhorn, there were a lot of them, and this was not the

first scandal at Volkswagen. I can remember very well the sex-and-bribery scandal [in 2008],

which even led to the conviction of an executive. Has an atmosphere of fear developed in

your company, where people are somehow afraid to say to the executive: 'We can't achieve

these aggressive targets in the USA without cheating'?

1-241-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Now, Mr

Henkel, that sex scandal was something completely different, and I don't think we should be

concerned with it here. I cannot confirm that there was an atmosphere of fear as such. Of

13-07-2016 37

course, as in all, or in many other successful companies, there was significant pressure on

every individual to perform. This is the only way you get to be a successful company. But of

course you know this. Up to a certain point, the individual workers have to be able to put up

with that. If they can't, they must say so. I myself on several occasions went to the executive

and said: I cannot do the job you have given me in this way, it cannot be done in this way.

That is not a pleasant conversation to have. But at any rate it is much better than what we are

seeing now.

1-242-0000

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – OK. Now I have one last question. Please tell me: You

explained that the exhaust standards in the USA are different from those here in Europe. I get

the impression that you are being more proactive in some areas there, and in Europe maybe

more proactive in other areas. Is it not possible to declare that your company policy is to treat

the highest exhaust standards, wherever you find them, as binding on the whole company for

all markets? Why don't you do that?

1-243-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Well, apart

from the obvious answer that, in terms of cost, it would mean that the vehicles were no longer

competitive, there are many other obstacles, such as the availability of fuel, driver behaviour

and in some cases contradictory legislation. For many years now we - both in the motor

industry as a whole and in VW as a company - have been working to harmonise standards

worldwide, not only for safety but also for emissions and consumption, so that we only have

to develop one vehicle for the world market. Unfortunately we are repeatedly thwarted in this,

because there is always someone who steps out of line. We spoke earlier about the WLTP -

the new consumption cycle. Once again the USA pulled out on us there. So once again we

have to build different vehicles.

But this is something I would like to see, and could maybe put to this House. Where we

succeed in creating harmonised or at least uniform standards, this leads to exactly what you

are proposing, Mr Henkel, and it makes it easier for us to build competitive cars worldwide

and concentrate our resources on improving cars instead of making three different variants of

the same vehicle.

1-244-0000

Chair. – That is maybe a suggestion for the TTIP negotiations.

1-245-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Welcome to the Parliament, Mr Eichhorn. Before you rejoined

Volkswagen, you were from 2012 to 2015 in the Verband der deutschen Automobilindustrie.

It would be very interesting to listen to your explanations about the way in which you

cooperated with the Commission and with whom.

1-246-0000


cooperation with the Commission of course took place mainly via ACEA, the Europe-wide

body. However, we naturally also spoke to the relevant Directors-General or Commissioners

on specific topics. The discussions which have now led to the Real Driving Emissions (RDE)

were a very important component of this. We would have preferred – instead of adopting

several packages one after the other – to have arrived at a single package in good time, rather

than first setting a rough target that we wanted to achieve somehow, then half-defining a test

procedure which gradually became more concrete, and only then determining the values. This

kind of package reflects the principle, which I learned here in Brussels, that ‘Nothing is

decided until everything is decided’, which leads to many of the problems we are now having,

of needing de facto to retrofit the petrol-engined vehicles 18 to 30 months in advance.

38 13-07-2016

1-247-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Did you ever speak about any problems about how to interpret

Article 5?

1-248-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – I did not.

1-249-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – In your answers to colleague Dance some minutes ago you said

about software:

‘wird nicht mehr verwendet’ (‘it is no longer used’).

To my ears – and I do understand some German – that sounded as though you said that we

used it in the wrong way.

1-252-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – As we have

said, the software was used to switch the exhaust mode, from reducing NOx more in the lab,

once it was outside the [temperature] window, to focusing more on particulates: that only

concerned exhaust recirculation. And as you know, there is a clear trade-off between

particulates and NOx, and also between other things. This is what the software did. According

to our interpretation this did not meet the definition of ‘defeat device’. Nevertheless, after

discussions with the German Government, we agreed to recall the 11 million vehicles

concerned.

1-253-0000

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – But the same engine – the same device – was a defeat device in the

United States?

1-254-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – It was

different in the United States.

1-255-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – Thank you very much for coming, Dr Eichhorn. To start

with: You returned to VW three months ago. You were Managing Director of the German

Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA). In 2010, I think, or around the end of 2009 /

beginning of 2010, the VDA helped ensure, after Deutsche Umwelthilfe (German

Environment Aid) had been informed of irregularities in VW exhaust values, that umbrella

initiatives seeking to retain tailpipe checks in exhaust inspections were halted. There is a

three-page memorandum with recommendations to that effect, whose addressees include the

then Specialist Division 34 of the German Government, and much more besides.

First of all I wanted to ask you: As Managing Director – in 2012, when you joined – did you

know that these things had happened, and how did you deal with them?

1-256-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – When I

joined the VDA in 2012 as a technical managing director – responsible for research,

standardisation, networking, electromobility and many other things – that was of course in the

past. I am not aware of this taking place.

1-257-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – Even as Managing Director you were not aware of a single

document about this? You never heard about this from anyone in conversations, not even one-

to-one conversations?

1-258-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – I do not

know what action you are referring to. I cannot remember this event, and as it was two or

13-07-2016 39

three years before my time... as a managing director of an organisation like that you don’t

have much time to look at the files on past activities.

1-259-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – But you know that this paper is there in the Bundestag, as an

internal paper, and that it will of course also be discussed there in the investigation committee.

And it is very surprising – I will ask this again – that you really didn’t know anything about

such activities which were later to play such an important role?

1-260-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – You would

have to ask my predecessor, Mr Frischkorn, who was in the post at that time. And if a record

of this event is in the Bundestag’s investigation committee, you can perhaps send it to me –

my email is simply HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"

[email protected] – and then I can have a look.

1-261-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – That will not be necessary. You have it, and it is available in

the Bundestag. We agree on that, as I am sure you know.

Now you want to investigate – the whole thing has been known about since 2007, it has been

discussed in the German Government under several ministers – and I am just asking: In this

investigation, did you ever think – or is there any debate now in VW – about why no-one did

anything, in spite of the fact that there was already clear evidence that something was wrong

with the exhaust figures? Particularly as it was already known about in the USA, where there

are stricter checks. Has that ever been investigated in any way, or do you always rely on one-

to-one conversations and that kind of thing?

1-262-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Well, the

fact that the exhaust values which vehicles – with the technology of the time, of course –

achieve on the road are different from those in the narrowly defined NEDC – which is and

was the prescribed test – this is widely known. I even said so in my opening statement.

Since 1998 – but I am sure you know this better than I do – the Umweltbundesamt (German

Environment Agency) has published its Handbook on Emission Factors, which explains

precisely that. The value given in the current version of the Handbook is around 600 mg per

km for Euro 5 vehicles.

1-263-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – I am not interested in the handbook. I was asking about

something else.

1-264-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – and 300 mg

for Euro 6 vehicles. These were the starting values for our vehicles too, the VW vehicles I

mean, speaking now on behalf of VW. And our latest Euro 6 vehicles are even better.

1-265-0000

Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – OK, I am sure that is debatable. I would like to return again

to these recalls. You said that it just takes half an hour for the software update to be

completed, that it is quite straightforward. Is there any adverse impact – and I am asking this

without any ulterior motive – is there any impact at all on driving performance, and if not, my

immediate question is, why does the update have to be done in the first place? One does

sometime wonder about these very basic things. And have you ever had the environmental

impact – not the cheated one, we know that, but the real overall impact over all those years –

calculated? Are there studies on this?

40 13-07-2016

1-266-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – There is no

adverse impact at all for the customer. I have with me the measurements the KBA carried out

for a group of vehicles. There is no adverse impact at all. The vehicle drives in exactly the

same way afterwards as it did before.

The 30 minutes I referred to is for vehicles that only need a software update. In vehicles

which also have a flow straightener installed – that is the ones with 1.6 litre engines – it takes

about an hour, about 60 minutes.

1-267-0000

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – I am sure you understand that the debate about VW here is

always of a rather special nature, because of the way the scandal broke. And I would be really

interested to see what the prospects are. So I would like to explore this topic, and thanks to

your representative in Brussels, Mr Klitz, I have received an article from the magazine

‘Autozeitung’, where there is a feature on the testing of two Passat models in the Euro 5

group after retrofitting. In the lab, the results are very satisfactory, below 180 mg, but outside

the testing cycle, on the road, the emissions are still very high. They are of the order of 553 to

569 mg.

And I would be very happy to know how this large discrepancy has come about. I would also

like to know under what conditions the exhaust cleaning system is even fully operational

outside the lab. I would also like to know under what conditions you consider it necessary to

turn off the exhaust cleaning system to protect the engine.

1-268-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – The Euro 5 designs

you refer to are a technology that was developed seven or eight years ago. We must be clear

that, in the case of the 2-litre vehicles and the 1.2 litre three-cylinder vehicles with a software

solution, we initially converted the software so as to achieve optimum results in the testing

cycle – both on the chassis dynamometer and on the road with a PEMS measurement – and

thus to fully comply, indeed more than comply, with the law. These technologies are not in a

position – even in the context of RDE where we are extending these tests in terms of load,

torque, speed, temperature, altitude, etc. – to achieve similar results to the NEDC. So I would

like to point to the Euro 6 designs, where we achieve significant improvements through more

advanced technology, exhaust cleaning nearer the engine, bigger catalytic converters and SCR

systems, and we no longer have such a wide discrepancy between results in the lab and on the

road.

1-269-0000

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – But you haven’t explained why the discrepancy is so big.

150 mg is fine, but then to reach nearly 600 mg on the road – that really isn’t acceptable.

1-270-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – To achieve the

lower values on the road, we would have to recycle a significantly higher level of exhaust.

That would mean a significant loss of performance for the engine – at higher loads, higher

speeds and revs – which would in turn mean on the one hand seriously worsening fuel

consumption, and on the other hand putting a much greater load on the exhaust cleaning

system, in other words the particle filter, the NOx storage catalytic converter or the SCR

catalytic converter. These systems simply aren’t designed to bear these loads. In other words:

We can’t recycle unlimited amounts of exhaust and expect these old systems to have the same

life expectancy for the customer. That is why.

1-271-0000

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – You mean, it really isn’t possible?

13-07-2016 41

1-272-0000

Friedrich EICHLER, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – It isn’t

technically possible.

1-273-0000

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – Just jumping to something slightly different, in your written

answer, and again today in the initial statements, you said that you assume the use of

technology that recognises the testing environment is not just permitted but necessary. Do you

still maintain that? Does that have anything to do with high emissions?

1-274-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – No, it has nothing

to do with that. What we will not do in future, and have already stopped doing, is to use the

signals from this test recognition feature to influence emissions-related functions in the engine

control unit and switch between parameters, that is, simply to manipulate the exhaust values

so that they are different on the road and in the lab. We do not use these signals for that any

more. The software which did this is being completely eliminated, and in future it simply will

not exist. Nevertheless – as my colleagues also said – a vehicle does need to know that it is in

a testing situation, as otherwise it cannot be tested.

1-275-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Recital 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 points to the need to

reduce vehicle emissions in order to reduce atmospheric pollution; recital 5 recognises the

value of informing the industry to give it time to adapt to the new Euro 5 and Euro 6

standards; recital 6 states that, particularly with a view to improving air quality and

conforming to pollution limit values, there is a need to significantly reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions from diesel vehicles.

With reference to your answer to question No 10, do you feel that those limit values have to

be respected only at the type approval stage? How, according to you, would this actually have

helped achieve the reduction targets?

1-276-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – In the

recitals you refer to the objective is to improve air quality. That is why all this is being done,

and we support this. The reduction of around 60% from Euro 5 to Euro 6, which generates a

reduction in the test cycle from 180 to 80 mg, is reflected on the road, though with different

values. As my colleague just explained, of course the emissions are higher in areas other than

those covered by the NEDC, for physical reasons. However, from our own measurements as

well as from the measurements in the Handbook on Emission Factors which has already been

quoted several times, and now also from measurements carried out by the German, British

and French authorities, we know that Euro 6 vehicles – not just ours in this case, but all Euro

6 vehicles – show values around 60% below those of Euro 5 vehicles. Euro 6c with RDE will

be another step of the same order of magnitude.

1-277-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – OK. From what I can understand, including from the findings of

this committee of enquiry, in reality the Commission, Member States and the car industry

have constructed a system under for pretending to reduce emissions and sell more cars. The

Euro categories, in fact enabled more cars to be sold and gifted the industry taxpayers’

money, so that business could continue as usual.

I would like to move on to another question concerning your answer to question 11, to which

I would like a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer as regards your possibly detecting the use of defeat devices

by other companies or models by means of reverse engineering operations. You did not reply

to that question. I do not want names, but would simply like to know if you picked up

anything in your tests.

42 13-07-2016

1-278-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – We have

not discovered anything of that kind.

1-279-0000

Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Fine. I have another question – this time about a recent study

conducted by an Italian consumers’ association, Altroconsumo, on an Audi Q5 2000, which

has been recalled in Italy. It seems that the subsequent intervention had no actual effect, since

even after the software was updated the vehicle continued to emit way above the limits, while

during the laboratory test too it was emitting around 25% above the norm.

How is it possible that even after interventions to resolve a problem there was no actual

reduction in the emissions? This is very serious.

1-280-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – It would be

nice if Altroconsumo would make the test results available to us. So far they have only given

us a political paper that does not even identify the vehicle and does not even give any further

details of the testing conditions and results. For that reason I cannot say very much. I can,

however, quote from it:

‘There is no significant variation in NOx emission or in fuel consumption between before and

after the software updating.’

and that is exactly what we said in our statement. The performance of the vehicle on the road

does not change.

(Laughter from Mr Turmes)

Mr Turmes, you don’t need to laugh. This is what we have been saying the whole time. The

only inconsistency we can see in this test by Altroconsumo is that Altroconsumo did not

succeed in reproducing the NEDC values, either in the test beforehand or in the test

afterwards. According to their figures, the NEDC value of this vehicle is 129 mg per km. But

the initial test result was already 200 mg. There are two plausible explanations for this. Either

the vehicle was not in perfect condition, or the laboratory was not in a position to carry out

proper measurements.

1-283-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group. – Perhaps I could just add

something here: The reason the KBA is taking so long to release the clusters is because

detailed measurements, including statistical measurements, have to be made to properly

compare the ‘before’ and ‘after’ results. Many self-appointed NGOs are not necessarily in a

position to carry out measurements on the ground taking into account all the relevant aspects.

1-284-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – It is nice to see you here, Mr Eichhorn. I gather from your most

recent press releases, particularly from your CEO, that he is very concerned about ethics in

Germany and all over the world. So my question, which isn’t so much a technical question, is

this: What is VW’s view of the fact that Germany pays out around EUR 7 billion a year in

subsidies for diesel out of public funds, of which VW is the main beneficiary, and that VW, as

practically a state concern, has to pay out almost EUR 15 billion in the USA alone? How do

you view this ethical dilemma? Or do you even see it as an ethical dilemma?

1-285-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - No, we

don’t see it as an ethical dilemma. First of all, taxation in Germany is a question you should...

13-07-2016 43

1-286-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – I was afraid so.

1-287-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – ... which

you must put to the finance ministers. I can tell you something about the background, but I'm

sure you are already familiar with it. The tax advantage ...

1-288-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – I am really not interested in the background.

1-289-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - The tax

advantage ...

(Mr Pretzell interrupts the speaker.)

Please let me answer.

1-290-0000

Chair. – Mr Pretzell, please let Mr Eichhorn give his explanation and then you can ask

another question.

1-291-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – No, no! I have got an answer to my question. I think that's enough.

Another question: there were reports that prior to the Dieselgate scandal VW was about to

build a plant in Russia, but that those plans have now been abandoned in favour of investment

in a US plant. To your knowledge, is there a link between the two developments?

1-292-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - Reference

has been made to subsidies totalling EUR 7 billion. VW will get nothing of that money, that

money will go to the customers. The subsidy was introduced to compensate businesses and

people who do a lot of driving for the higher taxes levied on diesel-powered vehicles.

The decision as to whether we build a plant in Russia or America is determined by local

market conditions. I don't think I need to tell anyone here how disastrous the situation is on

the Russian car market. America is a growth market, though.

1-293-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – All right. Then I have a question about the current rules. Here in

Parliament we are constantly dealing with automotive industry lobbyists, including lobbyists

from your own firm. Three or four years ago, how did VW view a set of rules which we now

acknowledge as being very unclear? Did your company try to clarify the rules in any way?

1-294-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - As

developers working for a major concern all we can do is apply the existing rules. In this case,

and in one respect, we did that incorrectly, but we don't make the rules. It is part of

democracy that social groups - the stakeholders - should be allowed to give their views. That

is why we have what you call lobbyists - on behalf of professional associations, firms in the

industry, NGOs and other firms. It's part of democracy.

1-295-0000

Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – We could perhaps come back to the issue of our understanding of

democracy, because mine is rather different to yours. No matter.

Now I have another question. You said earlier that the foot soldiers in the VW concern - if I

can put it that way - were responsible for the dodgy software and that senior management was

not informed. You yourself talked about the uncomfortable conversations which you can have

44 13-07-2016

when you have to explain to senior management that certain targets simply cannot be met.

This raises an obvious question: an employee has nothing to gain from manipulating software,

other than perhaps avoiding that unpleasant conversation. Am I to understand that employees

were part of a corporate culture which led them to break the law in preference to having to tell

the board the truth?

1-296-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - If

employees saw it that way, then that may of course have been the result. There is one thing

that I did not explicitly address in my opening statement, something which I mentioned only

in passing: we are in the throes of a massive change in our corporate culture. Our CEO,

Matthias Müller, has outlined this in his 2025 strategy.

1-297-0000

Chair. – We move to the second round. Mr Belet.

1-298-0000

Ivo Belet (PPE). – Good morning. Different cars from Volkswagen Audi are among the best

in the NOx class. You referred to it, Mr Eichhorn, in your introduction. What is astonishing is

that – and you also referred to this in your answer to question 8 – real driving emissions, even

with conformity factor 1, are already being fulfilled by those cars. So my question is: Why not

build those engines into all new VW, Audi and Skoda cars in the future – for instance from

2018 onwards – and guarantee that they will fulfil conformity factor 1 within two or three

years? Is that not possible? Or is that a naive question?

1-299-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group - The first thing to sort out

- we just talked about it - is the transition from Euro 5 to Euro 6. SCR systems are already in

use today, even under the law as it stands - the lighter a vehicle is, the more aerodynamic it is,

the more effective its aftertreatment system, the better the result is - as you just said - even in

normal driving conditions in the context of PEMS measurements.

And in the context of the forthcoming legislation, Euro 6, AGAJ, under which RDE and CF

factors for NOx will play a big role, this technology with all its components - SCR, high-

pressure EGR, low-pressure EGR, cooled EGR - will be rolled out for all diesel-powered

vehicles in all market segments by 2019, and then we will see further progress as regards test-

oriented pollutant emissions, and also outside the cycle - as my colleague has already

described - so that we move forward step by step and make real progress by 2019.

1-300-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). – Mr Eichhorn, Mr Eichler, Mr Eiser! I should like to pick up on

something which you - I think - repeated twice, or maybe three times. I am paraphrasing: the

system must know that it is on the test bed, but this knowledge must not be misused for the

purposes of manipulation. I believe that this was your attempt to justify defeat devices. Thus

far ... no?

1-301-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - test bed

recognition, cycle recognition - yes, defeat device - no.

1-302-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). – OK. Let us just accept that that is what was meant. Mr Eichhorn, in

your written answer to question 4 you state that EU law does not require manufacturers to

disclose details of their emissions reduction strategy.

I have a simple question: what makes you think that?

1-303-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - That was

introduced only recently as part of the RDE package. Prior to that it only applied to lorries.

13-07-2016 45

1-304-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - You say that prior to that it did not apply. Then allow me to draw your

attention to Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 from 2008. Article 3(9) states the following:

'However, when applying for type-approval, manufacturers shall present to the approval

authority with information showing that the NOx aftertreatment device reaches a sufficiently

high temperature for efficient operation within 400 seconds after a cold start at –7 °C as

described in the Type 6 test.' This is a requirement which has applied for some time, hence

my question.

1-305-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - There is no

blanket requirement to document or submit details of the AES. There are of course individual

tests in a whole range of areas. That is one of them.

1-306-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - But it is not an individual test, but rather a test conducted as part of

the type-approval procedure, and I am surprised that it is not seen as a requirement. Let me

rephrase my question:

1-307-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group - That is a

misinterpretation. It is of course tested and it is part of the type-approval procedure - that is

clear. The -7° C test you are referring to is a type-approval measure. It is mandatory and it is

carried out as part of every type-approval procedure.

1-308-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - But then your answer to the question is perhaps rather misleading,

when you say that EU law does not require manufacturers to have an emissions reduction

strategy.

1-309-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group - No, the details: which

software approach leads to which type of treatment, etc.

The type-approval procedure must of course show that all the relevant provisions and rules

have been met, measurements must be taken and results must be produced to show that they

have been met. But the strategy behind a management device, or which components and

actuators work together and in what way, that is what does not have to be documented and

disclosed. This will only be the case under the new conditions governing AES, when it will be

mandatory to say what the exceptional situations are or what the factors are which alter the

emissions pattern.

1-310-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - And your view is that in the future it will be necessary to disclose

something like that?

1-311-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group - There is now

comprehensive documentation on which factors lead to which variable pollutant emissions

patterns.

1-312-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - So yes?

1-313-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group – Yes.

1-314-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - And in the final analysis that also means that you support us when we

as politicians - as legislators - call for the testing authorities to be given access to the software

in future?

46 13-07-2016

1-315-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group - I don't think that any

testing body is in a position to examine the software. We just talked about the complexity of

the software. I agree with you that transparency and documentation are important in this area.

How effective the systems are and where the limits - the physical limits - of the systems are or

what interventions are needed to deal with conditions which result in pollutant emissions

being less homogenous or consistent than expected.

1-316-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - So, yes or no?

1-317-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - If we had

had comprehensive documentation about the strategies needed to deal with certain conditions,

it would have been much easier to identify those strategies. And the manufacturers would

have enjoyed a much greater degree of legal certainty if this had been part of the type-

approval procedure. Then - as in the USA and as has been the case for lorries for some time -

designs could be tailored in advance and it could become part of the type-approval procedure.

This would prevent confusion and - in particular retrospectively - differing interpretations.

1-318-0000

Ismail Ertug (S&D). - I'll take that as a yes. I also believe that the testing authorities would

be in a position to examine the software - at least some peripheral aspects. I have one final

question in the last 30 seconds.

Some well-informed NGOs claim that the real problem with Dieselgate relates to ultrafine

particulate emissions. Has VW considered this, and do you intend to introduce ceramic

particulate filters in your diesel-engined vehicles?

1-319-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - We have

particulate filters in all our diesel-engined vehicles. As I said in my opening statement, we are

now also introducing them for petrol engines.

1-320-0000

Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – We have heard several people say that motor manufacturers

need to be able to provide type-approval authorities with information about engine

technologies, and the European Commission is hoping that steps can be taken to make this

happen.

Do you think that action along those lines could really help to deal with manufacturers’ use of

defeat devices? Furthermore, can you say why some of your vehicles manage to comply with

the new Euro 6 standards, whereas others are still exceeding the emission limits? What are the

reasons for these differences in your company’s performance?

You were director of research in 2000. Were you aware that defeat devices were being used in

tests?

1-321-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - When we

conduct road tests of comparable vehicles on the basis of PEMS - I assume you are referring

to that- different vehicles produce different results. We use appropriate emissions reduction

technologies for the vehicles in question. In some cases we use LNT, because that is better in

some respects, and sometimes we use SCR, because that is better in some driving situations.

All the vehicles which in individual tests already have a conformity factor of one or even less

are vehicles equipped with SCR. We are now introducing SCR across the board.

13-07-2016 47

We are also developing a new generation of engines - as Mr Eiser has already mentioned -

which will be introduced as standard in the next three years.

As regards the PEMS measurements and the differences between them: these cannot always

be attributed to differences in the vehicle itself. Unlike in the case of testing on the test bed,

where the aim is to produce repeatable results which make for comparability between vehicles

and legal certainty, in the case of PEMS testing the deviations for the same vehicle - with the

same driver - are still substantial, so that a vehicle which produces a result of 0.8 can easily

produce one of 1.5 in the next test. At the moment we don't want to overemphasise this. We

will continue to work, however, to develop vehicles with a conformity factor of 1, and as

research director I was not very closely involved in these matters.

1-322-0000

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – I shall speak in Dutch. I am sitting to your left, here. In your

answer to Question 6a, you say that in your view there are no backdoors in EU legislation, but

at the same time you do say that there was some legal uncertainty about the term 'defeat

devices'. In another answer you say that until recently EU legislation did not include any

requirement to indicate the existence of auxiliary emission control devices. So the assertion

that there are no backdoors seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the grey area that you

yourself mention in your answers, or am I mistaken?

1-323-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - A loophole

is something completely different. EU law stipulates that only the result must be measured,

and exclusively on the basis of NEDC. That is a mandatory part of the type-approval

procedure. How that result was achieved was a matter for each individual manufacturer -

although they weren't allowed to use illegal methods of course. Testing by the authorities had

to reproduce the results or show that the limit values were being met. There was therefore no

need for the strategies to be documented. In America this arrangement had been introduced

some time before, as has been said, and the measurement of the cold-start temperature which

Mr Ertug has just referred to is of course one of the things which is tested separately.

1-324-0000

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – In other words, a regulatory framework is indeed very

important. So much so, indeed, that you say that Volkswagen uses a completely different

technology for its diesel cars in the United States to that which it uses for its European diesel

cars, precisely because of those differences in the regulatory framework. Which cars are the

cleanest, then, or perform best from the point of view of our air quality: the American or the

European?

1-325-0000

Eichler Friedrich, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand - The technology

which we use to comply with emissions legislation in the USA is the same as that which will

be incorporated into our Euro 6 vehicles. Comparing the Euro 5 technology with the

emissions reduction technologies used in the USA, you are right to say that the technologies

used from the outset in the USA are much more complex and more costly in technical terms.

1-326-0000

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – In other words, therefore, you opt – or have opted – for

technology on the basis of the legislative framework and the scope for possibly identifying a

grey area, and not on the basis of social concern, for instance the quality of our air?

1-327-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. - For every

market there is a suitable technical solution, tailored to the legal rules in force and to local

circumstances, fuel quality, driving conditions, customer expectations, etc.

48 13-07-2016

The Euro 5 legislation is comparable with older US legislation. The US legislation we are

talking about here and which we complied with by using LNT and SCR - which are more

complicated and costly than the technologies required to meet the Euro 5 norms - was already

then roughly comparable with the Euro 6 legislation. There is another factor: the US employs

a fleet-based approach which is similar to what we have for CO2 in Europe. A fleet average is

calculated on the basis of vehicles with differing emissions levels, which makes it possible to

optimise some vehicles and to keep some vehicles on the road for longer, a clear advantage.

1-328-0000

Jens Gieseke (PPE). – Mr Eichhorn, Mr Eichler, Mr Eiser, My colleagues sometimes give

the impression that this is a VW investigation committee. I can reassure you that we have a

wide mandate. Today we heard Renault, tomorrow we are hearing Mitsubishi. It is not that we

are investigating and seeking clarifications from one single company.

In your opening statement you mentioned three aspects: firstly finding good solutions for your

customers; secondly clarifying what happened, and thirdly looking to the future and learning

from mistakes. I think this point about clarification is very important, particularly here in

Brussels, in particular the point which you clarified about the different law in America. In

America it is not possible to carry out a repair, whereas in Europe it is, and this is why a

different solution is being used. And then in practice we see that you are spending EUR 46

billion on research and development and now nearly EUR 15 billion are being sent to

America. This money could have been better spent on research and development. From my

perspective, coming as I do from Lower Saxony [Translator’s note: The German region where

VW’s works are located and from which it receives funding], I find this disappointing, but

that is how it is.

As an investigative committee we must also look to the future and devise recommendations

for ways to avoid these errors in future, and of course an important aspect of this is writing the

software. Who participates in this? We had representatives of Bosch here who said they may

be involved in writing parts of the code. In your firm it is development engineers who are

involved. To put it simply: too many cooks spoil the broth. And this information has to be

communicated in a transparent manner to the type approval authorities, so that they can

follow what has happened.

How can this process be optimised so that ultimately the type approval authorities also know

what software was used and secondly, of course, that manipulation will be prevented in

future?

1-329-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group. – Well, we too have gone

through the whole production process on site with a fine-toothed comb together with our

auditors and with people from outside, we have identified all the deficiencies in the process,

we have drawn up a list of guidelines for the whole group in terms of a code of conduct and

methods, with the result that we can now maybe divide the process into three major aspects:

Firstly there is software development, as regards the application, i.e. the setting of parameters,

and the processes for release of the software.

Secondly, at the same time there is a focus on the whole topic of type approval, in other words

the vehicle, the recognition of driving resistance, and the type approval itself. And a third

major aspect is the topic of how to deal with discrepancies, what the escalation management

is like, both during development and also after start of production (SOP), when the vehicle is

on the road.

And I can say that on the VW site, in the VW group, there are more than 1000 people

involved looking at the questions of: How do we establish a ‘many eyes’ principle, a

13-07-2016 49

documentation requirement, at every step? How do we create the links between the early stage

(the requirements side) and the late stage (product release), so that things are not lost, or

cannot arise in a small group somewhere along the way, such as a software routine which

afterwards no-one recognises but which sets something off?

1-330-0000

Chair. – I am very sorry but it is 12.30 and l still have six people on my list. I want to treat

everybody as equally as possible. I have 15 minutes extra from the interpreters but that is it.

This means that everybody has to stick a bit more closely to the two minutes and not always

go beyond the three minutes. I am very sorry. I try to get that message across time and time

again, but I am not a teacher. So, Mr Zorrinho, please stick to a question and do not give a

speech.

1-331-0000

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Madam Chair, I see that I am always the one who is expected to

set an example, but I shall do so.

Volkswagen has paid 13 billion euro to American consumers who have been affected by its

use of defeat devices. Why is it not paying anything to European consumers?

1-332-0000


European customer is treated better than the American customer, because he gets exactly the

same car he bought, and can keep his car. So the European customer does not suffer any

damage, and if there is no damage there is no compensation.

The situation is fundamentally different for the American customer. The American customer

has received a different car, one that has different values from the one he purchased.

Unfortunately we are not in a position to repair all American cars. So that is the situation we

found ourselves in in America. We would much rather have repaired the cars for the

American customers, so that they could keep the same cars they had. We are already hearing

from American customers that they would rather keep their car and not have it repaired

because they are happy with it. That is exactly the position the Europeans are in.

1-333-0000

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – It should somehow be possible for European customers to opt for

one alternative or the other, just like the Americans.

In any event, some of those responsible at Volkswagen have said that the rules on emission

tests have not been broken because the devices were used pursuant to an article in the

regulation that allows engine performance to be protected in test situations. I imagine that you

do not agree with this, i.e. that you do not agree with these views expressed by your

colleagues.

1-334-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – It is not a

matter of protecting the performance of the engine. Furthermore we are not talking about the

temperature window, we are using a software that can choose between several strategies or

modes. According to our interpretation of the law, that is not a ‘defeat device’, not a switch-

off device, nothing is being switched off. Nevertheless we are of the opinion that this software

in this form is no longer acceptable to us. That is why we agreed with the authorities to recall

this software and exchange all 11 million vehicles at our expense.

1-335-0000

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – I am pleased that you acknowledged at the start that you felt

ashamed, and with this answer you have at least avoided the shame of doing more to protect

engines than human health. 400 000 Europeans could die prematurely because of excess

emissions.

50 13-07-2016

1-336-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Mr Eichhorn, Mr Eichler and Mr Eiser, you have already been

asked a lot of questions and have given a lot of explanations. You said that basically now,

with Euro 6 and RDE, with what we now have in the lab - in other words, what we are putting

in the law - it really is possible to comply fully with the required values. The question is

whether this is enough. Because you said before that our earlier law was not detailed enough,

and that the US law was better. Do we have enough in the RDE law to really check this in

future?

One other thing: You highlighted how complicated the driver assistance system is, with 400

pages of instructions. Is it even possible in the legislation to really make everything so

watertight that it can be properly checked?

1-337-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – You have

summed it up very nicely. We already have vehicles that are in the Conformity Factor 1 zone,

but this is not fully reproducible, not so that you can rely on it. We will get our vehicles into

that zone. There is also a margin of error of around 0.5 in RDE. So there will be a further

dramatic improvement in our vehicles. Even replacement of the fleet with the present-day

Euro 6 cars will mean that the Air Quality Directive is complied with at nearly all measuring

points.

In Germany we have looked at the 60 dirtiest measuring points - all close to traffic, as

measuring takes place at the roadside - and made detailed analyses of them. We have also

held discussions with municipal authorities via the VDA. Once the whole fleet is largely

equipped with Euro 6 engines, Germany alone - and it is just the same in other countries, but

we only have the results for Germany - will comply with the Air Quality Directive at all

measuring points, and I am really talking here about air quality in terms of micrograms.

1-338-0000

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – So the RDE legislation is now complex enough? Briefly, yes or

no?

1-339-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – The RDE

legislation is complex enough, it is no longer possible to get round it. And the values achieved

by RDE will lead to another clear drop in NOx. I know that historical figures are not that

popular here, but from 1990 to 2015 - over 25 years - in spite of the massive increase in

traffic, NOx pollution was reduced by 58%.

1-340-0000

Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – I had three nice questions to put to you, but instead I shall ask

you one and half which are a little nasty.

The first of them concerns the different approval systems in the various Member States. This

is primarily a reference to the answer to Question 5. We also discussed something similar

before, in the slot with Renault. In terms of cost and time, what are the real differences

between the approval procedures used by the various authorities of the EU Member States?

In the second question – which was intended to be of a more industrial character, but the

times are what they are – I would like to ask you too, as a car manufacturer – in the previous

slot, Renault gave a rather general answer – to supply an industrial answer. Here many people

are venturing into industrial scenarios despite not being competent to do so. From your point

of view, what future does the introduction of RDE hold out for diesel, and what industrial

changes will it bring about for car manufacturers?

13-07-2016 51

1-341-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – I will

answer very concisely. Type approval in the various countries takes place in accordance with

exactly the same rules. We in the Volkswagen Group normally have our vehicles type-

approved in five different countries. We have Volkswagens approved in Germany - with one

exception - and we have not noticed that the criteria or indeed the costs are significantly

different. In doing this we are motivated firstly by the competence of the individual type

approval authorities - for example, we often carry out crash test type approval tests in the

Netherlands, because they were very keen on this at an early stage. Secondly it is sheer

capacity. Given the large number of new vehicles and the many types we have, we need to

divide ourselves between various type approval authorities and technical services.

Concerning the influence of RDE on diesel: It is not just RDE, it is everything in what we

may call the whole Euro 6c package (AGAJ) that will of course make exhaust treatment for

diesel significantly more expensive, and it will make diesel less attractive for many people,

specifically in the small vehicle categories. But for people who travel long distances, diesel

remains very much the vehicle of choice. We are seeing a slight shift away from diesel, but by

no means the end of diesel, or VW getting out of diesel, as has been claimed owing to a

misinterpretation of some statements by our CEO Mr Müller.

1-342-0000

Martina Werner (S&D). – Mr Eichhorn, I would like briefly to return to something you

mentioned earlier, concerning the recall campaign here in Europe, and specifically in

Germany. You said this had no influence on the quality of the car - this was just removed or

an update was made - and you mentioned specific characteristics. One characteristic you did

not mention was durability. So I would be interested to hear whether there are maybe any

restrictions in that area, and whether you might expect, later on, to have to pay compensation?

1-343-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – We have had all

the packages of measures for the 2-litre, the 1.6 litre and the 1.2 litre three-cylinder models

checked by two internally independent units within the company - Overall Vehicle

Development and Quality Assurance - in accordance with our quality criteria, and there will

be no restrictions on quality, in durability, either of the vehicle or specifically of the exhaust

unit. Categorically not.

1-344-0000

Martina Werner (S&D). – OK, thank you very much. Then I have one more question. I am

not an engineer, so I am not quite clear about why it is not possible to carry out a recall

campaign like this in the USA. You were not very specific about this, you just said that it was

not possible in view of the various models, or something like that. I would be interested to

hear, in terms I can understand, why this is not possible in the USA whereas it is here.

1-345-0000

Axel Eiser, Head of Powertrain Development, Volkswagen Group. – There will also be a

recall campaign in the USA. It is just that there the customer will have more options, but at

any rate there will be a recall campaign where we will repair the vehicles.

1-346-0000

Martina Werner (S&D). – So the US customer has the choice - as my colleague said earlier

- and the European customer doesn’t. Is that the difference?

1-347-0000

Friedrich Eichler, Head of Powertrain Development for the VW brand. – Yes, and that is

simply because we are unable to restore the US vehicle to the condition it was in when the

customer purchased it. The customer purchased a vehicle which, at the time, officially

complied with the TIER2 BIN5 legislation, including 32 mg of NOx per km, and there is no

way in which, by any fair means, we can even get near complying with this original

52 13-07-2016

legislation. In other words, the customer will be driving a car that emits considerably more

NOx and also more hydrocarbons. For this reason the situation in the USA is different.

Probably - and this will emerge from investigations currently under way - there will also be a

negative impact on fuel consumption in the USA.

1-348-0000

Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Madam Chair, I will try to be brief. Mr Eichler, I am

particularly interested in two things. In your first response, you said, ‘it is our goal that there

will be no negative impact for the customers in terms of comfort, emissions, power output etc.

from the recall’.

I would like to ask why that wasn’t your objective sooner. I am, of course, talking primarily

about emissions, but also about what you said at the beginning – that the recall itself could, in

some models, lead to reduced fuel consumption in some models. Why did you not attempt to

offer the very best to your customers earlier, if you knew that was possible?

1-349-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Of course

we did that. Please note: the development of these vehicles took place from 2005 to 2007 and

in subsequent years, so around ten years ago. Since then we have learnt a lot ourselves. The

state of technology today is different, and many things we developed for the Euro 6 engine we

can now implement in the Euro 5 engine with the new software, so that we can do these things

already today.

But the main point of the whole issue, the essential thing, is that we take out the piece of

software in question, the one that does the mode switching. That of course makes no

difference to the customer, because it is not active during driving anyway.

1-350-0000

Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – So we can actually be happy about the whole business,

because it means the customers will get a better product and won’t have to wait another ten

years.

Just another brief question: do you really believe that ordinary employees – those who don’t

or didn’t belong to the higher ranks of management – should be held accountable for the

scandal? Because that is what it sounded like you were saying. You told us that you dismissed

a number of employees. You didn’t say what position those employees were in, but I don’t

think ordinary workers were to blame. Volkswagen’s top management must have known what

was going on.

1-351-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Who knew

anything and who did anything is a matter that is currently being investigated. For that reason

I cannot say anything. But I can reassure you: So far all the staff who were suspended or sent

home or dismissed have been board members, senior managers or at least heads of division or

department.

1-352-0000

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Mr Eichhorn, in your version of what happened in the USA

you left out the most important thing: You made a number of attempts to persuade EPA and

CARB to let you carry out a recall. But EPA and CARB said: You can’t comply with the

standards, so you must now pay. The real scandal in Europe is that the KBA is now

authorising you to carry out a recall of 8.5 million cars which will not bring about any

improvement in NOx emissions. It is a massive sham! In other words: you are right, the

European consumer bought a car with emissions of 180 mg per km, and now you are carrying

out recalls and the cars will have emissions of 400, 500, 600 or 700 mg per km, and you are

selling that as a recall. The KBA is a scandal within a scandal. You only need to say yes or no

13-07-2016 53

- the recall campaign in Europe will be 8.5 million instances of failure to bring about a

significant NOx reduction.

1-353-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Mr Turmes,

please don’t confuse the acceptance test with the performance...

(Mr Turmes interrupted the speaker)

1-354-0000

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – They are not being confused in the USA, but you are

constantly confusing them. Constantly! They are not being confused in the USA.

1-355-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – No. In the

USA and in Europe the vehicles must comply with the acceptance test without a defeat

devise, with no ifs or buts. Our vehicles comply with the acceptance test. On the road our

Euro 5 vehicles behave roughly the same as all other Euro 5 vehicles. You can see this in

the...


1-356-0000

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Yes, 400, 500, 600, 700 mg. The standard is not being met!

1-357-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – Yes, around

600 mg. The Federal Environmental Agency has been publishing the Handbook on Emission

Factors for years, and it states: Euro 5 vehicles on the road emit roughly 600 mg per km. That

corresponds to 180 mg in the acceptance test, just as 80 mg for Euro 6 corresponds to some

240 mg [on the road] - Handbook for Emission Factors 3.2...


1-358-0000

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – If I may interrupt you there. In other words, we adopted a

law requiring 180 mg, and for years you simply went on acting as if it were 400, 500 or 600,

and now you are carrying out a recall. It is a massive sham.

1-359-0000

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – No! There

is a measurement value for each measurement procedure, and vice versa. It is quite simple.

The measurement value and the measurement procedure are prescribed by the EU, they are

precisely determined. We have no choice.


1-360-0000

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – In other words: In the USA the authorities ensure that the air

is not just clean in the lab but also on the road, while in Europe the KBA and others ensure

that this is not the case. That is the scandal within a scandal.

1-361-0000

Dr. Ulrich Eichhorn, Head of Research and Development, Volkswagen Group. – That is not

true.

1-362-0000

Chair. – Now I have to take up the defence of our interpreters who have already done an

extra job.

54 13-07-2016

I would like to thank the people from Volkswagen and Mr Eichhorn and his assistants for the

answers. We are very glad that you were here. We will see each other tomorrow at 09.00 for

the next hearing. Thank you very much.

(The meeting adjourned at 12.50)

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EMISSION MEASUREMENTS IN … · 2016. 8. 29. · Gaspar Gascon Abellan,...

Documents

Transcript of COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EMISSION MEASUREMENTS IN … · 2016. 8. 29. · Gaspar Gascon Abellan,...