25. Mr. Rijnders introduced the concept of the discussion of THC emissions level that was brought to the GFV by the Commission for input.

26. Jeff Seisler presented on Overview & Status of Retrofit and OEM NGVs: Focus on Europe, in part requested by the European Commission staff working on the THC amendments (GFV-22-07).

27. A survey of European retrofit industry on methane limits and natural gas catalysts by NGV Global was presented by Jeff Seisler. Little hard data has been provided by the retrofitters, however, a number of aftermarket system suppliers indicted that a target THC of 150 mg/km could be something that is more easily justified in order to convert an existing gasoline car to natural gas without the use of a methane catalyst.

28. Commission Proposal on CH4 limit in Euro 5/6 (Bernardo Martinez, DG Enterprise). GFV-20-08

• - Current limit values for Euro 5/6 are: NMHC 68mg/km and 100 mg/km THC.
• - Limits are relevant only for CNG, normally bi-fuel of a vehicle population of less than 1% Europe-wide.
• - Technical consequences: The THC requires that methane catalysts are needed for retrofitting vehicles to NGVs if they are to achieve Euro 6, 100 mg/km THC.
• - The proposal is to give a choice to the OEMs between: THC emission value of 100 mg/km (using a methane catalyst) OR a THC emission limit of 220 mg/km. In this second case the Global Warming Potential of CH4 would be taken into account as a CO2 equivalent.
• - Reg.115 would be amended with a THC limit of 220 mg/km.
• - Advantages for OEMs: 1) no negative effect for OEMs as CO2 penalty when below 100 mg/km; and 2) manufacturer could use the same emission limits as retrofitters.

29. Discussion & questions:

• - NGVA Europe: Current NMHC limit value would remain unchanged? Yes. And the retrofitters likely would not have a problem with the 220 mg/km limit.
• - AEGPL. It might be good to introduce the same type of approach in R.83 to calculate the same CO2 equivalent.
• - ACEA/VW: This is a new approach and they had not seen the proposal earlier. Ms. Leifheit indicated that they need time to discuss this internally within ACEA. At the first glance the first option is not an advantage because the OEMs still would have to pay for a methane catalyst; for the second option the OEMs would have to pay for a CO2 penalty, so the second option also could be costly.
• - For some vehicles it may not be an advantage to have a methane catalyst so it could be an advantage to have the second option.
• - The only reason the OEMs are now investing in NGVs is to save CO2.
• - NGVA Europe position. They believe the suggestion made from the Commission is a positive contribution to the debate and they will have to go back to their members – OEMs and retrofitters – and determine if this is an acceptable solution for the stakeholders.
• - Mr. Rijnders concludes that the proposal from the Commission looks very promising because it is balanced between OEM and Retrofit. It eliminates the possible negative CO2 impact on OEM NG vehicles. Further discussion between the Commission and stakeholders will continue.