Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)284 - CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)284 - CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)284  |
| date | 17-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) has committed to avoiding climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C. Decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a key prerequisite for fulfilling this commitment.
The EU 2030 framework for climate and energy includes a target of an at least 40% reduction of domestic EU GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels. All sectors will have to play their part if this level of ambition is to be achieved and if the costs and severe impacts of climate change are to be avoided.
The road transport sector is of key importance for reducing GHG emissions and decarbonising the EU economy. Light-duty vehicles (LDV) – passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (vans) - are already delivering their share of emission reductions and legislation has been proposed 1 in 2017 so that they continue doing so after 2020.
Road freight transport is essential for the development of trade and commerce on the European continent. Lorries carry around 70% of freight transported over land, delivering also essential public services. The road freight and passenger transport sector largely consists of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), with over 600 000 enterprises across the EU employing almost 3 million people. Another 3.5 million people are employed in lorry manufacturing, repair, sales, leasing and insurance.
While CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles (HDV), i.e. lorries, buses and coaches, account for about 6% of total EU emissions and 25% of road transport CO2 emissions in the EU, they are currently not regulated at EU level. This poses three main problems.
First, without any further action, CO2 emissions from HDV are projected to grow by 9% over the period 2010– 2030 due to increasing transport activities. As shown in the Impact Assessment 2 accompanying the post-2020 CO2 emission standards for LDV, further measures are needed in the road transport sector to meet the 2030 national targets set under the Effort Sharing Regulation.
Second, transport operators and their clients currently miss out on possible fuel savings and reduced fuel bills. While cost-effective technologies for reducing emissions are readily available, they are not widely spread on the HDV market. This is to the detriment of transport operators, mainly SMEs or micro enterprises, which can experience fuel costs greater than a quarter of their total operational costs.
Third, EU HDV manufacturers face increasing global competitive pressures as the United States, Canada, Japan and China have already implemented regulatory measures to reduce HDV CO2 emissions. The EU automotive sector will need to keep up with the technological improvements in these markets to preserve its technological leadership in vehicle fuel efficiency.
There are a number of different pieces of EU legislation relevant for the decarbonisation of road transport, which address the abovementioned problems to some extent. This concerns supply, demand, economic and enabling instruments. However, these measures are not sufficient for tackling the key market barriers hampering the uptake of fuel-efficient technologies.
The proposal for CO2 emission performance standards for new HDV sets out a complementary supply-side measure at EU level to address these market barriers, with the following key objectives:
–Reduce CO2 emissions from the HDV sector in line with the requirements of EU climate policy and the Paris Agreement, while reducing air pollution notably in cities.
–Facilitate a reduction in operating costs for transport operators, most of which are SMEs, and more broadly of transportation costs for consumers depending on pass-through of fuel savings.
–Maintain the technological and innovative leadership position of EU HDV manufacturers and component suppliers.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This proposal is part of the Third Mobility Package. It delivers on the commitment taken in the 2016 European Strategy for low-emission mobility, whose goals include, amongst others, reducing GHG emissions in road transport by at least 60 % in 2050 compared to 1990 levels and setting CO2 emission standards for HDV.
The proposal builds on and complements other existing EU mobility policy measures which affect the regulatory environment and incentivise low-emission mobility in the heavy duty vehicle sector, such as the Certification Regulation 3 , the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation 4 , the EU type-approval system, the Eurovignette Directive 5 , the Fuel Quality Directive 6 , the Clean Vehicles Directive 7 , the Directive on maximum authorized weights and dimensions 8 and the Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (AFID). 9
• Consistency with other Union policies
This proposal contributes to the transition towards a low-carbon, secure and competitive economy and it will help to meet the emission reduction target of at least 40% included in the Energy Union Strategy 10 . It will also help Member States achieving the national emission reduction targets set under the Effort Sharing Regulation. 11
Finally, the proposal is also in line with the global-level engagement by the Union to achieve the ambitious climate targets under the agreement found in Paris at the 21st UN Conference of the Parties (COP21).
By addressing issues related to the technological and innovative leadership position of EU automotive industry the proposal is consistent with the Renewed Industrial Policy Strategy 12 , which underlines that a modern and competitive automotive industry is key for the EU economy. Furthermore, by stimulating the deployment of new fuel-saving technologies, the proposal also contributes to fulfilling the Union's objectives to generate jobs and growth.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
Articles 191 to 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specify EU competencies in the area of climate change. In particular, they provide the legal basis for acting on HDV fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
The EU has already acted in the area of vehicle CO2 emissions, adopting Regulations (EC) 443/2009 and (EU) 510/2011, which set limits for CO2 emissions from cars and vans. The Commission also adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from and fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles. These Regulations were based upon the Environment chapter of the Treaty, namely on Article 192 TFEU.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
Contents
- Necessity of EU action
- Added value of EU action
- Policy options
- Reference of the Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment: SWD(2018)186
- Article 3 - Definitions
- Article 9 - Verification of the monitoring data
- Article 10 - Publication of data and manufacturer performance
- Article 12 - Adjustments to Annexes I and II
- Article 13 - Review and report
- Articles 14 and 15 - Comitology and delegation of powers
- Article 16 - Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009
- Annex I
- Annex II
Climate change is a trans-boundary problem and at the same time is a competence shared between the EU and Member States. Road freight transport also has a trans-boundary dimension in view of the specific service it renders. Transportation of goods does not happen only within a country but also across Member States and the fact that HDVs can be traded across the EU.
Consequently, EU action is justified in view of both the cross-border impact of climate change and the need to safeguard single markets in road freight transport services as well as those in HDVs.
Without action at EU level, one would have to rely on Member State initiatives to reduce HDV emissions. However, currently many Member States apply a preferential tax treatment for the fuel used in the HDV transport sector, and there are few signals that this would change in the future. The current fuel tax levels have not triggered the necessary increase in fuel efficiency.
In addition, such a decision lies with Member States and it is unlikely that Member States will all together increase fuel tax levels to such a level that could trigger significant efficiency improvement. In addition, the EU taxation policy is subject to unanimity making it difficult to harmonize this policy field.
For these reasons, the possible increase in fuel tax levels could only be complementary but could not substitute the setting of CO2 emission standards.
Furthermore, in case action would be left to Member States, different national schemes could be established, e.g. depending on the targets set under the Effort Sharing Regulation. If this were to happen, it would result in differing ambition levels and design parameters which would require a range of technology options, diminishing economies of scale and fragmenting the single market.
Since manufacturers hold differing shares of the vehicle market in different Member States they would be differentially impacted by various national legislations potentially causing competitive distortions.
Coordinated and complementary action at European level is therefore necessary.
In view of the existing single market for new HDVs, it is most cost-effective to ensure harmonised action and set CO2 emission targets on new HDVs at EU level. Even if all Member States were to establish regulatory requirements for new vehicle CO2 emissions, poor coordination between countries, could raise compliance costs for manufacturers as well as weaken the incentive to design fuel efficient HDVs because of the fragmentation of the European market.
The additional costs, which would arise from the lack of common standards and common technical solutions or vehicle configurations would be incurred by both component suppliers and vehicle manufacturers. However, they ultimately would be passed on to consumers who would face higher vehicle costs.
The automotive industry requires as much regulatory certainty as possible if it is to make the large capital investments necessary to maximise the fuel economy of new vehicles, and even more so for shifting to alternative power-trains. Union-level harmonised standards provide this certainty over a long planning horizon and they could not be implemented with the same effectiveness and certainty at Member State level.
• Proportionality
The policy choices covered by the current proposal seek to regulate the CO2 emissions from HDV. The proposal is strictly oriented on what is necessary to achieve the objectives set.
In view of that, the proposal complies with the proportionality principle. It sets emission standards in a cost-effective manner in order to achieve the required CO2 emissions reductions from new HDV in line with the agreed EU 2030 climate and energy framework while at the same time ensuring a fair distribution of efforts among manufacturers.
Chapter 7 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the present proposal looks at the proportionality aspects of each of the outlined policy choices.
• Choice of the instrument
A Regulation is considered to be the appropriate legal instrument as it provides the required assurance for compliance with the CO2 emission performance standards by manufacturers, whilst not requiring the transposition into Member States’ legislation. The EU objective applies to the Union as a whole. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a uniform approach is applied in all Member States. Further, as explained above, a harmonised approach is required in order to avoid distortions of competition and risks of fragmentation of the internal market.
This choice is also consistent with the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles laid down in Regulations (EC) 443/2009 and (EU) 510/2011.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
No evaluation could be carried out in view of the absence of EU legislation setting CO2 emission performance standards for HDVs.
• Stakeholder consultations
The Commission sought feedback from stakeholders through the following elements:
(a)a public on-line consultation (20 November 2017 until 29 January 2018)
(b)a stakeholder workshop (16 January 2018);
(c)meetings with relevant industry associations representing vehicle manufacturers, components and materials suppliers, fuel suppliers.
(d)meetings with Member State authorities, vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, social partners and NGOs;
(e)position papers submitted by stakeholders and Member States.
A synopsis of the stakeholder consultation is provided in Annex 2 to the Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal.
The main outcomes of the stakeholder consultations can be summarised as follows.
When asked, by order of importance, which were their preferred options to reduce CO2 emission from new HDVs and to contribute to the 2030 energy and climate targets, the preferred option across all stakeholders was legislation setting HDV CO2 emission performance standards at EU level.
However, while all civil society organisations favour binding HDV CO2 emission reduction targets at EU level, some HDV manufacturers and their associations expressed a preference for other measures via a comprehensive approach including legislation defining a CO2 labelling scheme at EU level, inclusion of the transport sector in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, other incentives such as fuel taxes at national level, or CO2 based road charging.
While the setting up of CO2 emission standards for HDVs is not the preferred option expressed by manufacturers, they have proposed setting both 2025 and 2030 CO2 emission targets at the lower range of the options considered in the Impact Assessment, and called for a review of the 2030 target in early 2020s.
Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) supported a single CO2 target to apply from 2025 onwards, at a level corresponding to the higher range of the options considered, while suggesting to set the 2030 target at a later stage.
Regarding incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles (ZEV/LEV), manufacturers expressed a preference for a super-credits scheme under which these vehicles would be counted multiple times for meeting the CO2 manufacturer specific target. Environmental NGOs were in favour of either a mandate which would require manufacturers to register a minimum share of ZEV/LEV, or a flexible mandate under which the CO2 target of a manufacturer would be relaxed if the share of ZEV/LEV would exceed a benchmark.
Cost-effective implementation was supported by all stakeholders, with manufacturers favouring the broadest possible flexibility and NGOs supporting only a trading scheme. Most stakeholders supported the setting up of a process for assessing the representativeness of the certified CO2 emissions against real-world emissions.
• Collection and use of expertise
For the quantitative assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the policy options, the Impact Assessment report relies on a suite of models and a dedicated set of cost curves covering a broad range of technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from HDVs.
These cost curves, which show the CO2 reduction potential and costs for over 50 technologies, were developed as part of a study carried out by Commission contractors 13 and work by the JRC 14 .
The PRIMES-TREMOVE model is used to project the evolution of the road transport sector for a range of scenarios. This model has been consistently used by the Commission for its climate, energy and transport initiatives. In addition, the DIONE model developed by DG JRC was used for the cost assessment and the macro-economic model EXIOMOD was used to quantify the impacts on GDP and sectoral turnover.
Further information was gathered through support studies commissioned from external contractors and involving the JRC, in particular addressing the following issues:
·elements potentially impacting industrial competitiveness and employment;
·the impact of different regulatory approaches, regulatory metrics and possible design elements (modalities);
·impacts on GHG and pollutant emissions.
Information on the data and analytical models used is presented in Chapter 6 and Annex 4 of the Impact Assessment.
• Impact assessment
The Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal has been prepared and developed in line with the applicable Better Regulation guidance. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board had issued a negative opinion on a first draft on 4 April 2018.
Improvements as recommended by the Board have been incorporated in a revised draft. This concerns the following main elements: (1) clarifications and expansion of the analysis of market failures, in particular with regards to market information asymmetries; (2) further analysis, better presentation and clarification on the readily available and prospective technologies as well as their related uncertainties – including through the inclusion of summary table of the technologies; (3) a better presentation of the past and future Commission's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from HDVs by 2030; i more information on basic assumptions behind the calculations on expected savings.
A second version of the draft Impact Assessment received a positive opinion by the Board on 19 April 2018. The final version includes further improvements recommended by the Board in its final opinion: (1) more information about the importance of earlier work on measuring, certification, monitoring and reporting, for regulating CO2 emissions in the HDV sector; (2) better explanations of the inertia in developing fuel saving new technologies, and how transport market uncertainties lead operators to underinvest in fuel savings technologies.
The policy options considered in the Impact Assessment are grouped into five key elements, aimed to address the identified problems and achieve the policy objectives.
1) EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets (scope, metric, metric unit, level, timing)
In defining the EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets, the following aspects were taken into account: scope, metric, metric unit, level, timing.
With respect to the scope of the proposal, the options considered were either to cover the four main groups of vehicles which will be covered by the Certification regulation as of 1 January 2019 or to cover only the largest group, in both cases using whole-vehicle CO2 standards. A third option analysed was the addition of engine-only CO2 standards.
The preferred option is to cover the four vehicle groups with the highest CO2 emission levels, applying whole-vehicle CO2 standards. That will ensure maximum effectiveness in terms of environmental benefits and added value.
Concerning the metric for the targets, the options considered include a Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) and a Well-To-Wheel (WTW) approach. As regards metric units for expressing the targets, three options were considered, each of them capturing to a different degree the utility of HDV.
The preferred option is to use the TTW approach with targets set in g CO2/tkm. This ensures consistency with existing regulatory practice, avoiding double regulation and confusion of responsibilities between manufacturers and fuel suppliers. The metric unit also takes full account of the utility of the lorries covered.
A wide range of target levels and different timing options were assessed, covering the views expressed by stakeholders.
In view of the analysis carried out, the preferred option is to set binding CO2 targets from 2025 reducing emissions compared to the 2019 levels, based on the deployment of readily available cost-effective technologies. For 2030, the uncertainties on the uptake of more advanced technologies not yet readily available are higher. This is why the preferred option is to set only an aspirational target for 2030. An early review should therefore be carried out in 2022 in order to: (i) set the mandatory target also for 2030; (ii) assess the modalities for implementation; (iii) review the scope in order to cover also smaller lorries, as well as buses, coaches and trailers.
Such an approach will provide a clear and early signal for investments on medium-term expectations and it will help Member States meeting the targets set under the Effort Sharing Regulation.
2) Distribution of EU fleet-wide target across vehicle groups and manufacturers
While the EU fleet-wide CO2 target defines the overall ambition level of the policy, its practical application requires consideration of the fleet composition of manufacturers in terms of its distribution over the different vehicle groups. Target compliance will have to be demonstrated at the manufacturer level. The distribution options considered include separate targets per HDV sub-group or a single target per manufacturer, calculated as the weighted average of all sub-group targets, taking into account the number of vehicles in each sub-group and their utility.
The preferred option is to have a single weighted average target for each manufacturer. This option scores best in term of efficiency and proportionality. It provides for flexibility by allowing for balancing an underperformance of vehicles in certain sub-groups with an overachievement for other vehicle sub-groups.
3) Incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles (ZEV/LEV)
The Impact Assessment considered four types of specific incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles (ZEV/LEV). These include super-credits, a one- and two-way credit system linked to the targets, as well as a mandate.
Furthermore, a variant was assessed, extending the ZEV/LEV incentive by covering also other HDVs such as buses and smaller lorries which would initially not be subject to the CO2 targets.
The preferred option is to set up a ZEV/LEV incentive in the form of super-credits with sufficient safeguards preventing a weakening of the CO2 targets. This is found to be the most effective option considering the specific state of development and deployment of the zero- and low-emission technologies in the HDV sector.
4) Elements for cost-effective implementation
Different elements that allow for cost-effective implementation were assessed. These include (1) exemptions for vocational vehicles, e.g. construction vehicles, garbage lorries, (2) pooling, (3) trading and i banking and borrowing.
Given the limited cost-effective CO2 emission reduction potential for vocational vehicles due to their lower mileage and payloads compared to other HDV, the preferred option is to exempt these vehicles from the CO2 emission reduction targets.
With respect to flexibilities, the preferred option is to provide for banking and borrowing of CO2 credits across different compliance years, including the necessary safeguards to guarantee the environmental effectiveness of the legislation. This is the most effective and least market distorting option.
5) Governance related issues
The effectiveness of the CO2 targets in reducing real-world emissions depends on the one hand on the representativeness of the results of the VECTO simulation tool with respect to average real-world driving, and on the other hand on the extent to which the HDVs placed on the market conform to the reference vehicles tested at type approval. The options considered relate to real-world emissions, market surveillance and penalties.
The preferred options are the following:
(a)To mandate the collection, publication and monitoring of real-world fuel consumption data reported by manufacturers, based on mandatory standardised fuel consumption meters.
(b)To introduce in-service conformity tests and mandate the reporting of deviations and the introduction of a correction mechanism.
(c)To apply financial penalties in case of non-compliance with the CO2 targets.
These options will enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and the added-valued of the legislation.
Reference of the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board: SEC(2018) 233
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
In line with the Commission commitment to Better Regulation, the proposal has been prepared inclusively, based on transparency and continuous engagement with stakeholders.
The Impact Assessment has also analysed how to possibly simplify the legislation and reduce unnecessary administrative costs.
Exemptions from the CO2 emission standards are foreseen for vocational vehicles.
Furthermore, the proposal contains several elements for cost-effective implementation such as banking and borrowing which reduce compliance costs for manufacturers.
The implementation of the proposed super-credit system for zero- and low-emission vehicles would not create additional administrative burden as it does not require additional reporting.
The impacts, in terms of administrative burden, of the options related to governance will depend on the concrete implementing measures.
The initiative in itself would not entail additional administrative costs for type-approval authorities. The costs related to certification and the monitoring and reporting of data on CO2 emissions have been considered in the context of those proposals.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The budgetary impact resulting from the implementation of the proposed Regulation is very limited (see details in the attached Legislative Financial Statement).
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The proposal builds on the Certification Regulation 15 and the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation 16 .
In application of the latter, the European Environment Agency (EEA) will combine the registration data from national authorities with the monitoring data from manufacturers and publish per manufacturer and vehicle group annual monitoring data for each certified new vehicle registered in the EU.
Moreover, this Impact Assessment puts forward the option of complementing the proposed Regulation on monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions data from HDV with the following two additional monitoring measures.
·the collection, publication, and monitoring of real-world fuel consumption data reported by manufacturers and based on mandatory fuel consumption meters;
·the introduction of in-service conformity tests and the obligation to report deviations from type approval values, combined with a correction mechanism.
These complementary monitoring measures would reinforce the monitoring process and would ensure the effectiveness of the proposed legislative initiative.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Article 1 – Subject matter
This Article sets out the objective of this Regulation which is to contribute to achieving the CO2 emission reductions required as part of the Effort Sharing Regulation through emission reductions in the road transport sector. It also specifies the relative reduction targets to be achieved by the Union’s fleet of new heavy-duty vehicles in the period 2025 to 2029. It sets out an aspirational 2030 target which should be determined subject to a review in 2022.
The targets are set as a relative reduction of the average specific emissions of the vehicles registered in the reference year 2019 which is the first year for which official monitored CO2 emissions data will be available. The targets are attributed to each vehicle sub-group as defined in Section 1 of Annex I. Vocational vehicles (e.g. garbage trucks and construction lorries) do not have the same CO2 reduction potential as heavy-duty vehicles used for the delivery of goods and they are therefore excluded from the calculation of the CO2 reference emissions.
The CO2 reference emissions are determined in accordance with Section 3 of Annex I.
Article 2 – Scope
This Article defines the vehicles that fall within the scope of this Regulation by reference to the relevant categories defined in type approval legislation and to the four vehicle groups for which certified CO2 emissions data will be available from 2019 onwards. Vehicles of the categories M2 (buses) and M3 (coaches) and vehicles of the category N (lorries) that fall outside the four abovementioned vehicle groups will not be subject to the CO2 reduction requirements but should be taken into account for the purpose of the incentives given to zero- and low-emission vehicles (see Article 5).
Moreover, the provision specifies when vehicles are considered as newly registered for the purpose of the Regulation.
This Article sets out the definitions to be applied for the purpose of this Regulation.
Article 4 – Average specific emissions of a manufacturer
According to this Article, the Commission shall determine and publish annually the average specific CO2 emissions of each manufacturer starting from 2019. The data used as a basis for calculating the average emissions are reported by the manufacturers concerned pursuant to Regulation (EU) No …/2018. In order to reflect the utility and specificity of the vehicles, the individual heavy-duty vehicles shall be attributed to different vehicle sub-groups, where specific weightings are applied for the mission profiles (i.e. the vehicle usage patterns), the payloads and the annual mileages. Moreover, the manufacturer’s share of vehicles in each vehicle sub-group is taken into account. Vocational vehicles of the categories N2 and N3 (e.g. garbage trucks, construction lorries) do not have the same CO2 reduction potential as heavy-duty vehicles used for delivery of goods and therefore they shall not be included in the calculation of the average. The formulae for calculating the average specific emissions are set out in Section 2 of Annex I.
Article 5 – Zero- and low-emission heavy-duty vehicles
In order to incentivize the deployment of zero- and low-emission heavy-duty vehicles, those vehicles shall be counted multiple times for the purpose of determining a manufacturer’s average specific emissions starting from 2019. Manufacturers of zero- and low-emission vehicles shall benefit from such 'super-credits' for each zero- and low-emission vehicle placed on the market with a different multiplying factor according to the vehicle's CO2 emissions.
A specific incentive is also provided for zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles of the categories M2 (buses) and M3 (coaches) as well as certain category N vehicles (small lorries), including zero-emission vocational vehicles. While those categories of vehicles are not subject to CO2 reduction requirements under this Regulation, they are nevertheless considered for the purpose of determining the zero- and low-emission factor.
Low-emission heavy-duty vehicles means heavy-duty vehicles with specific emissions below 350g CO2/km, i.e. about less than half of the average of the fleet emissions.
In order to preserve the environmental integrity of the targets, the lowering of the average specific emissions of the manufacturers through the incentive scheme for zero- and low-emission vehicles should be subject to a cap.
The formulae for calculating the zero- and low-emission factor is set out in point 2.3 of Annex I.
Article 6 – Manufacturer specific emission targets
This Article provides for the calculation of annual manufacturer specific emission targets for the preceding calendar year, starting in 2026. The first annual targets will therefore be determined for the calendar year 2025. The targets shall take into account the overall reduction targets for 2025 and 2030 respectively, as well as the utility and specificities of different heavy-duty vehicles in the same way as for the calculation of the average specific emissions. The annual specific emission targets of a manufacturer will therefore be calculated as a weighted average of the targets determined for each of the vehicle sub-groups.
The formulae for calculating the specific emission target are set out in Section 4 of Annex I.
Article 7 – Emission credits and debts
This Article sets out a ‘banking and borrowing’ mechanism, allowing a manufacturer to balance an underachievement of its specific emission target in one year by the overachievement in another year. For that purpose, the manufacturer may ‘bank’ emission credits, if its emissions are lower than a reduction trajectory determined as a linear trajectory from the 2019 reference CO2 emissions to the 2025 targets and from the 2025 targets to the 2030 targets. Two different trajectories are needed to take into account that the slopes may differ depending on the exact targets determined for 2025 and 2030. In order to incentivize early emission reductions emission credits can be acquired already from 2019 to 2024, and likewise for the period 2025 to 2029. The emission credits acquired in the period 2019 to 2024 are taken into account for assessing the manufacturer’s compliance with its specific emission target in 2025 only. No further carry-over of credits acquired during the period from 2019 to 2024 will be allowed. Emission credits may also be acquired and used for the following period from 2025 to 2029. In case a manufacturer exceeds its target in any of the years from 2025 to 2029, it may acquire a limited emissions debt that must be cleared at the latest in 2029. The total emission debt may not exceed 5% of the manufacturer’s specific emission target in 2025, otherwise an excess emission premium shall be imposed in accordance with Article 8.
The emission credits and debts are elements defined for the purpose of the calculations but they shall not be considered as assets that are transferrable or subject to fiscal measures.
Section 5 of Annex I sets out the formulae for calculating the CO2 reduction trajectory and the emission credits and debt.
Article 8 – Compliance with specific emission targets
Where a manufacturer is found to have excess emissions, taking account of the emission credits and debts acquired in accordance with Article 7, the Commission shall impose a financial penalty in the form of an excess emission premium. The level of the premium is set at 6 800 € per g/tkm, equivalent to 570 € per g/km based on an average payload of 12 tons, of excess emissions which reflect the marginal cost of CO2 reducing technologies.
Section 6 of Annex I sets out the formulae for calculating the excess emissions. The methods for collecting the premiums shall be determined by means of an implementing act.
This Article sets out a mechanism to introduce a procedure for in-service conformity checks of the CO2 emission values from heavy-duty vehicles building on the type approval legislation. Type approval authorities shall report any deviations detected and the Commission shall take those into account when checking manufacturers' compliance with their targets. The provision includes an empowerment for the Commission to provide the details for such a procedure by way of an implementing act.
This Article lists the data that the Commission shall publish with regard to manufacturers' annual target compliance (i.e. the annual monitoring decision).
The Article also empowers the Commission to adjust the 2019 CO2 reference emissions in accordance with well-defined procedures (set out in Article 12 and Annex II), in order to reflect adjustments of the payload values or changes in the type-approval procedure that have a non-negligible impact on the CO2 emissions determined for a heavy-duty vehicle. The adjustment will affect the calculation of the manufacturers’ specific emission targets, as of the year following its adoption.
Article 11 – Real-world CO2 emissions and energy consumption
This Article provides an empowerment for the Commission to monitor and assess the real-world representativeness of the CO2 emission values simulated with the VECTO, tool pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2400. For that purpose, the Commission should have the power to request real-world data to be collected and reported by Member States and manufacturers. This approach follows that proposed for light-duty vehicles and, as a first step, requires the introduction of mandatory standardised fuel consumption meters on board of heavy-duty vehicles.
Technical progress and changes in the type approval procedures may affect the level of the official CO2 emission values determined for the heavy-duty vehicles falling within the scope of this Regulation. In order to consider these changes, this Article provides an empowerment for the Commission to adjust certain technical parameters set out in Annex I and II, including adoption of a methodology for determining a representative vehicle per each vehicle sub-group, on the basis of which those changes would be assessed. The adjustments proposed follow clearly defined steps set out in Sections 1 and 2 of Annex II.
This Article requires the Commission to provide a report on the effectiveness of this Regulation, to be submitted in 2022. The report should address the emission reduction target for 2030 as well as the setting of reduction targets for other heavy-duty vehicles not yet subject to reduction requirements. The report should also cover the effectiveness of the modalities, i.e. the zero- and low-emission vehicles incentive system and the ‘banking and borrowing’ mechanism, and consider the need for continuing those modalities beyond 2030. Where appropriate the report should be accompanied by a proposal for amending the Regulation.
These are standard provisions on the committee procedure and the delegation of powers.
This amendment aims to introduce a legal basis in Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro 6 emissions type approval regulation) for the Commission to set up an in-service conformity procedure for verifying CO2 emission from heavy-duty vehicles. This procedure is essential for an effective market surveillance of the type approval system and the CO2 emission values used for target compliance purposes.
Annex I sets out the technical requirements and formulae for the following elements:
·Attribution to vehicle sub-groups
·Calculation of the average specific emissions of a manufacturer
·Calculation of the CO2 reference emissions
·Calculation of the specific emission target for a manufacturer
·Calculation of the CO2 reduction trajectory and the emission credits and debts
·Determination of a manufacturer’s excess emissions
Annex II sets out the procedures for adjusting the CO2 reference emissions, i.e. the payload adjustment factors Section 1) and the methodology for taking into account changes to the type approval procedures (Section 2).