Decarbonizing Transport: The Final Push Against Partial-Electrification Technologies
The debate over the future of the internal combustion engine IMT is Rejecting PHEVs and EREVs is rapidly intensifying, focusing now on whether to grant a lifeline to hybrid technologies like the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) and the Extended-Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) beyond the pivotal 2035 phase-out deadline.
Car manufacturers, particularly those in Germany and Asia with significant hybrid portfolios, have aggressively lobbied for a “technological neutrality” approach, arguing that PHEVs and EREVs offer necessary flexibility and lower initial costs.
However, organizations like the Institute for Mobility in Transition (IMT), in collaboration with groups like the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), are taking a firm stand against any reprieve. The IMT’s position is not based on technological preference, but on a pragmatic, data-driven analysis of lifetime costs, genuine climate impact, and industrial competitiveness. Their conclusion is unequivocal: retaining PHEVs and EREVs post-2035 will backfire, costing consumers more, leading to massive excess emissions, and slowing down the growth of Europe’s burgeoning Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) supply chain.
This article unpacks the IMT’s decisive arguments, detailing why anything less than a full commitment to Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) is a significant policy risk.
The Climate Case: High Emissions and The Utility Factor Lie
The primary reason for the IMT’s refusal to grant an extension is the damning real-world data showing that PHEVs and EREVs fail to deliver on their promised climate benefits.
The Real-World PHEV Emissions Scandal
The core of the issue lies in the emissions gap. PHEVs were certified using an official Utility Factor (UF) that assumed drivers would use the electric mode for the majority of their driving.
Flawed Assumptions: Official testing procedures (WLTP) assumed a high electric-driving share (often 80% or more).
Damning Reality: Data collected from on-board fuel consumption meters (OBFCM) on thousands of vehicles reveals that the actual electric-only driving share is closer.
The 5x Emissions Gap: As a result, studies from Transport & Environment (T&E), often cited by the IMT, show that the real-world
emissions of new PHEVs are nearly five times higher than their official laboratory ratings.
The IMT and ICCT argue that granting a reprieve to these vehicles past 2035 would effectively lock in these high emissions for another decade or more, sabotaging the commitment to climate neutrality by 2050.
EREVs: A New Bottle for an Old Wine
The IMT also extends its critique to Extended-Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs), often touted as a more efficient hybrid solution where the gasoline engine only acts as a generator to charge the battery, never directly powering the wheels.
Fuel Tank Incentive: EREVs, particularly those from Chinese manufacturers, often feature large fuel tanks that allow for over 900 km of travel using the combustion engine alone. This provides little incentive for drivers to consistently plug in and charge.
High Cruising Consumption: When the battery is depleted, data from China (where EREVs are prevalent) shows that their fuel consumption can be as high as a figure similar to or worse than many modern petrol SUVs.
The Full Life-Cycle Cost: The IMT’s analysis indicates that even with the best case scenario (e-fuels or biofuels), hybrid and range-extended technologies still leave a carbon footprint over their full life cycle compared to BEVs powered by an increasingly clean grid.
IMT’s Climate Stance: The IMT views any extension for PHEVs/EREVs as a direct risk of adding billions of tons of excess
emissions to the atmosphere by 2050, an unacceptable outcome given the climate crisis.
The Socio-Economic Case: Higher Costs for Consumers
A key finding of the IMT/IDDRI study, which strongly influences policy recommendations, is the financial burden a PHEV reprieve would place on car buyers, especially lower-income households.
New Car Buyers: The Cost of Dual Powertrains
The complexity of PHEV/EREV technology creates a high manufacturing cost that is passed directly to the consumer. These vehicles require two full powertrains: an ICE, an electric motor, and a significant battery pack.
Upfront Price: IMT calculations show that a new PHEV is already approximately 7% more expensive than a comparable BEV, even today. As BEV prices continue to fall due to battery cost reductions (especially with the rise of LFP batteries) and scaling of production, this price gap will widen significantly.
Maintenance and Servicing: The dual-powertrain system is more complex to maintain and service than a pure BEV, which lacks oil changes, transmission fluids, and spark plugs. This results in higher long-term servicing costs for PHEV/EREV owners.
The Used Market Disparity and Social Justice
The IMT’s most powerful socio-economic argument is focused on the used car market, where most households buy their vehicles.
Widening Used Car Price Gap: The IMT calculates that on the used market, the price difference between a PHEV and a comparable BEV will widen to
or more as the car ages. The uncertainty over the used battery health and the high service complexity make the PHEV an unattractive used purchase.
Disproportionate Impact: If PHEVs and EREVs are allowed to continue sales until 2035, the used car market after 2035 will be flooded with these higher-maintenance, high-emissions vehicles. Low-income families, who rely almost exclusively on the used car market, will be left with these older, polluting, and more costly-to-run vehicles, while wealthier consumers benefit from pure, affordable BEVs.
Conclusion: The IMT argues that prolonging the life of these transitional technologies would disproportionately penalize lower-income families, making it a social justice issue disguised as technological neutrality.
IMT’s Economic Stance: Exemptions for hybrids will cost buyers more than EVs, with a new PHEV being more expensive than a comparable EV, and the gap widening to $\mathbf{18\%}$ on the used market.
The Industry Case: Undermining European Competitiveness
The IMT’s final argument addresses the macro-economic and industrial policy consequences of wavering on the 2035 ZEV target.
Deterring Investment in the EV Value Chain
The 2035 deadline has acted as the single most critical investment signal for the European automotive supply chain.
Regulatory Certainty is Key: The clear, fixed target has spurred over
in announced investments in battery production (gigafactories), charging infrastructure, and EV manufacturing across Europe. Any softening of the target—such as a PHEV reprieve—introduces regulatory uncertainty, which could cause investors to pull back or divert funds to other, more certain markets (like North America).
The BEV Momentum: BEVs are where innovation is now focused. Watering down the 2035 mandate would reduce the pressure on manufacturers to sell BEVs, potentially causing them to fall back on less efficient PHEVs. This would directly undercut the competitiveness of Europe’s burgeoning EV industry.
Chinese Dominance in EREVs
The rise of the EREV, heavily promoted by manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz in lobbying efforts for an extension, presents a unique industrial risk for Europe.
China’s Technological Lead: EREV technology is already dominated by Chinese manufacturers (e.g., Leapmotor, BYD). Allowing a massive EREV market post-2035 would essentially hand a significant portion of the European market to foreign competitors in a key technology segment.
Risk to European Autonomy: The IMT argues that relying on imported hybrid technology, whether PHEV or EREV, keeps Europe strategically dependent on fuel imports and slows investment in the domestic battery supply chains, negatively impacting the region’s long-term trade balance and national sovereignty.
IMT’s Industrial Stance: Prolonging hybrid sales risks derailing Europe’s
investment in the domestic EV value chain, weakening its competitiveness against rapidly advancing Chinese BEV and EREV manufacturers.
The Path to Zero-Emission Must Be Unambiguous
The Institute for Mobility in Transition (IMT) is refusing a reprieve for PHEVs and EREVs after 2035 because a comprehensive, data-driven analysis shows that these technologies are financially risky, environmentally deceitful, and industrially detrimental.
The high real-world emissions of PHEVs, the complexity and cost of dual powertrains, and the risk of regulatory policy whiplash all point to the same conclusion: the transition technology has served its purpose and must be retired.
The future of mobility requires a clear, unwavering commitment to zero-emission vehicles to safeguard the climate, protect consumers from hidden costs, and provide the regulatory certainty necessary for European industry to lead in the global EV race. The IMT’s staunch refusal to compromise on the 2035 deadline is a clear signal that the time for transitional technologies is over—the moment for full-scale electric adoption is now.
