COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive

on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards 2

Appendix 2: Results of consultation with interested parties 4

Appendix 3: Existing or planned initiatives at European level affecting the uptake of alternative fuels 11

Appendix 4: Existing initiatives for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure 12

Appendix 5: Existing and expected alternative fuels infrastructure in the EU 32

Appendix 6: The root causes of the insufficiency of the infrastructure for alternative fuels – Fuel-by-fuel analysis 36

Appendix 7: Detailed pre-screening of possible policy options 43

Appendix 8: Possible legislative formulations in the Policy Options 46

Appendix 9: Illustration of possible implementation measures 49

Appendix 10: Results of illustrative economic modelling 55

Appendix 11: Manufacturers of alternative fuels infrastructure equipment, and of alternative fuel vehicles and vessels 64

Appendix 1: Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards

Aim and content of the consultation process

1. The White Paper “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System”[1] announces that the Commission will develop “a sustainable alternative fuels strategy including also the appropriate infrastructure” (Initiative 24) and ensure “guidelines and standards for refuelling infrastructures” (Initiative 26).

2. The aim of the consultation was to gather the views of the EU citizens and stakeholders on this initiative.

3. The consultation process has been structured as follows:

(1) Consultation of stakeholders (industry and NGOs) through several meetings of the European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels;

(1) Consultation of representatives of the Member States;

(2) Public Consultation;

(3) Targeted stakeholders’ consultation on the policy options regarding the deployment of refuelling and charging infrastructure under the study Exergia S.A. et al., 2012, Assessment of the Implementation of a European Alternative Fuel Strategy and Possible Supportive Proposals.

4. The General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission were respected in the elaboration and presentation of the consultation questionnaire.

Publication

5. All reports have been published on the Commission website at the following addresses:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/2011-01-25-future-transport-fuels-report.pdf;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/2011-12-2nd-future-transport-fuels-report.pdf;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/jeg_cts_report_201105.pdf;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/consultations/doc/cts/report-on-results.pdf;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/studies/doc/2012-08-cts-implementation-study.pdf

Time limits for participation

6. The consultation of the European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels started on 26 April 2010, and ended with the publication of the second report of the Group in December 2011.

7. The consultation of the Joint Expert Group Transport & Environment started on 17 March 2011, and ended with the publication of its report in May 2011.

8. A public on-line consultation was published on 11 August 2011. The questionnaire was available on-line until 20 October 2011, respecting the minimum consultation standard period of at least eight weeks.

9. The consultation under the Exergia S.A. et al., 2012, Assessment of the Implementation of a European Alternative Fuel Strategy and Possible Supportive Proposals took place between November and December 2011.

Acknowledgement and feedback

10. The Commission requested and obtained the approval of all members of the European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels and the Joint Expert Group Transport & Environment before publishing the relevant reports.

11. As to the Public Consultation, stakeholders were informed on-line that their contributions would be handled by a consultant and used by the Commission services, and a summary of the consultation’s results would be published on the Commission’s website.

Appendix 2: Results of consultation with interested parties

The studies and the consultations with industry experts, national experts and the public, carried out between 2010 and 2012, have arrived at the conclusion that a fuel mix of several main alternative fuels is considered the only realistic solution, not just as transition, but for the foreseeable future. All main alternative fuel options should therefore be developed in parallel. However, the efforts will need to be adjusted to the technological, and economic maturity of the different fuels and related propulsion systems. Infrastructure networks with refuelling/recharging facilities have been highlighted by all parties consulted as an essential and necessary condition for the market penetration of alternative fuels.

The stakeholders that participated in the process belong to the sectors of energy supply to transport; manufacturers of vehicles, vessels, planes and trains; transport operators; users; public authorities; and civil society.

The relevant findings can be summarised as follows.

· The vast majority of respondents consider that EU policy action should be taken to steer an EU wide market introduction of alternative fuels.

Furthermore, the majority of respondents:

· supports the build-up of alternative fuel infrastructure

· believes that a mix of alternative fuels (electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, methane, LPG and synthetic fuels) should be included in the EU long-term strategy.

· believes that EU action should not be limited to the adoption of common standards

· considers that voluntary action of industry alone could not achieve the development of refuelling/recharging infrastructure

· considers that EU legislation requiring minimum refuelling/recharging infrastructures is required

· believes that that the public sector should intervene in the development of the refuelling/recharging infrastructures

· considers that support mechanisms (such as incentives, RTD funds, loans, concession rights for first investors…) should be set-up to promote alternative fuels vehicles and infrastructures.

Stakeholders’ Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels

A European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels (EEGFTF) was created in March 2010 to obtain advice on the development of policy strategies and specific actions aimed to gradually substituting oil as transport fuel in the long term and to decarbonise transport while ensuring economic growth. The Group was composed of all relevant industrial stakeholders, including transport organisations and civil society. The Commission chaired the Group and coordinated its activities.

The EEGFTF prepared two reports, namely:

– The first report (January 2011) sets out a long-term strategy, a roadmap, and recommendations on short-, mid- and long-term actions to support the market build-up for alternative fuels for all modes and segments of transport. The Group identified electricity, hydrogen, and liquid biofuels as long-term options for gradually substituting oil as an energy source for propulsion in transport. Synthetic fuels, methane and LPG can be considered as short/mid-term options. The report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/2011-01-25-future-transport-fuels-report.pdf.

– The second report (December 2011) focuses on the “Infrastructure for Alternative Fuels”. This report provides additional recommendations on short-, mid- and long-term actions to support the market build-up of alternative fuels for all modes and segments of transport and the relevant infrastructure. The report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/2011-12-2nd-future-transport-fuels-report.pdf

The EEGFTF pointed out that an appropriate regulatory framework and financial instruments will be required to introduce sustainable low carbon alternatives to the market.

Some members rejected binding targets in fuel infrastructure as they believe that development in infrastructure, not in line with market development, would not be cost effective; legislation should only aim at creating a level playing field.

Most members however share the opinion that binding targets could become a real driver for the alternative fuel market, attracting clients and steering market demand for these fuels. An appropriate refuelling infrastructure would need to exist before producing and promoting more alternative fuelled vehicles on the manufacturer side.

Furthermore the EEGFTF highlighted the need for supporting the private sector to undertake effective actions to accelerate the development of new refuelling infrastructure with the following objectives:

– To establish EU-wide a minimum coverage of refuelling infrastructure for the main alternative fuels that have technological viability and market potential, to facilitate economies of scale for market introduction;

– To ensure a harmonised implementation of standards for the main alternative fuels;

– To align policy and public/private funding and taxation in the field of alternative fuel infrastructure.

While mandates on infrastructure are objected by some members, the other members of the EEGFTF consider public intervention necessary to break deadlocks between potential market growth for alternative fuel technologies and missing fuel supply.

In conclusion, most members consider not realistic to expect the market to cater for the transition to more expensive low-carbon alternatives alone, and that, therefore, important interfaces should be defined by legislation to allow and encourage this market demand.

Report of the Joint Expert Group on Transport and Environment

The Joint Expert Group Transport & Environment -JEGTE (composed of experts from 24 Member States and Norway for consultation purposes) was convened by the Commission to obtain recommendations on the development of a consistent long-term alternative fuels strategy of the EU, as preparation for the CPT initiative. The JEGTE met on 17 March 2011 and discussed possible scenarios for future transport fuels. In a report to the Commission[2] the Group agreed with the fuel mix recommended by the (EEGFTF). High potential in feedstock, energy efficiency, and CO2 reduction would be important selection criteria. The main alternative fuels should be available EU-wide with harmonised standards. The Group also noted that the different transport modes require different alternative fuels. The report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/cts/doc/jeg_cts_report_201105.pdf.

Stakeholders’ Consultation

A consultation of stakeholders in the alternative fuels sector was launched on 14/11/2011 as part of the study “Assessment of the implementation of a European alternative fuel strategy and possible supportive proposals” MOVE C1/497-1-2011. The consultation was mainly intended to data collection for modelling.

In total, 124 questionnaires were distributed to members of the Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels and other relevant stakeholders. The organisations that responded are: IATA, ePure, EBB, SCANIA, Eurelectric, AVERE, SIEMENS, ERTRAC, NEW ENERGY WORLD IG, AirLNG, NGVA Europe, IVECO, AEGPL Europe, UPEI, SHELL, ASFE, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation of the Netherlands, CEDEC, HyER. The report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/studies/doc/2012-08-cts-implementation-study.pdf.

Electromobility

The majority of respondents:

· consider the infrastructure for dedicated/captive fleets not to be enough for the development of an electric vehicles market, and that a network for private electric vehicles has to be developed, since about half the electric vehicles sales are for private users.

· consider the number of charging points on the basis of the annual vehicles registrations as the most effective indicator to define the minimum, appropriate and optimum coverage.

· support the participation of both the government and the industry in the investment cost. Government should help the industry (e.g. electricity companies) participate with research and implementation of the first steps to demonstrate accessibility (e.g. through incentives for the promotion of the electric vehicles infrastructure, subsidization on the national or regional level) possibly up to 2017. Afterwards the private sector can bear the investment cost and expect normal profit (positive business case).

Respondents consider that the proposed electric charging infrastructure would have a positive impact to the competitiveness of the EU automotive industry and creation of additional jobs for equipment manufacturers and along the supply chain.

Hydrogen

· It is generally acknowledged that the European hydrogen network would be effectively established if the regulatory barriers at EU and national level were removed. The existing ISO and SAE standards should be adopted EU-wide.

· According to the majority of respondents, during the initial phase, public support is needed to realize the technological shift. When moving closer to the commercial phase, risks should be borne by industry.

Biofuels

· The majority suggest that European Standards (EN norms)/specifications of the higher grades of biofuels have to be established and harmonised across the EU, and the OEMs to adjust the engine manufacturing accordingly to meet the standards, so as to incentivize growth of a vehicle fleet that is compatible with higher grades of biofuels.

· The majority of respondents expressed the opinion that higher biofuel blends should be introduced in dedicated fleets, as a first (but not a sufficient) step for the development of a market.

CNG

· The majority of respondents consider that the minimum infrastructure coverage for private passenger cars and commercial fleets using cars and vans should correspond to 10% of the urban filling stations and to 25% of the stations along the motorways. This percentage should be linked to the availability of methane stations at least every 150 km along motorways.

LNG

· For heavy duty vehicles, there is a further distinction in infrastructure coverage according to the type of transport (whether it is urban for the transport of goods, or heavy trucks for long distance). In the case of transport of goods, refuelling with LNG should be made possible every 400 km.

· NGVA expects that the development of adequate infrastructure for natural gas and biomethane will lead to an increased number of natural gas vehicles, which will increase the competitiveness of this sector in the EU, currently lying behind compared to the global natural gas vehicle development.

· According to most respondents, the future of LNG as fuel in vessels at European level depends on the policy measures that will be taken. If the policy measures are appropriate, 20-30 new LNG fuelled vessels could be expected per year.

LPG

· AEGPL suggests that binding targets for harmonization in the LPG fuel quality can help the market develop, in order to stimulate car makers. A regulatory process for establishing a unique LPG connector in the EU is an example of how the market can grow.

· The majority of respondents see a positive impact on automotive industry/equipment manufacturers from the development of refilling stations, as it would lead the automotive industry to invest in more LPG technology, manufacturing facilities, marketing and R&D.

Public consultation

A public on-line consultation took place between 11 August 2011 and 20 October 2011.

123 responses were received, with almost equitable distribution among individuals (31.7%), private sector companies (33.3%) and industry associations or NGO (29.3%). A small portion represented local or regional public authorities (4.1%) and national public authorities (1.6%).

The report is available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/consultations/doc/cts/report-on-results.pdf

The main indications from the different sectors are the following.

A vast majority (89%) shares the view that there is the need that EU steers an EU-wide market introduction of alternative fuels through policy actions.

In particular:

· ACEA underlines that “The roll-out of the necessary infrastructure to deliver and supply such fuels [electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, biomethane, LPG, and others] should be matched to technical development and to enable the market penetration of new vehicles technologies”.

· Daimler indicates “Harmonisation, fuel infrastructure legislation, specification of blends” as issues justifying EU policy action. Furthermore, Daimler indicates the need for legislative measures on fuel infrastructures.

· The Centro Richerche FIAT underlines the need for “Regulations and procedures to enhance realization of infrastructures for fuel distribution”.

· The Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) states that “The European Union should progress the use of alternative fuels for short sea maritime transport”.

· The natural Gas Vehicle Association NGVA indicated that EU action is necessary for “infrastructure, research and Development, funding and fiscal treatment”.

As to what fuels should be included in the EU long-term strategy:

· A vast majority of respondents pronounced in favour of electricity

· A considerable majority pronounced in favour of biofuels and hydrogen

· Synthetic fuels, and CNG/LNG, and LPG were indicated by significant shares of respondents

· Electricity, biofuels and methane-related fuels are mostly suggested for the urban (short) transport mode

· Biofuels were suggested mostly for long distance road-passenger vehicles followed by methane derivatives and synthetic gas

· Biofuels and LNG was mostly indicated for waterborne transport

· Biofuels and synthetic fuels, followed by methane LNG were mostly indicated for airborne transport.

In particular,

· The Association of German Transport Companies VDV indicated “Long-term: rather electricity, hydrogen, biofuels. Medium-term: also synthetic fuels and methane”.

· Polis declared “Emphasis should be placed on these first three fuels (electricity, hydrogen, and biofuels). It must be ensured that biomethane is included under biofuels. Synthetic fuels should include those from biomass.”

· Shell commented that “A combination or mosaic technologies will be needed to supplement fossil fuels across the various transport sectors”.

Three quarters (77%) of the respondents considered that public sector should intervene in the development of the refuelling/recharging infrastructure.

In particular:

· Renault stated that “In the case of the electric vehicles and the fuel cells the development of charging/refuelling infrastructure is critical for the mass deployment. Therefore, the role of the public sector is essential to guarantee an adequate regulatory framework and the support needed to move quickly into a mass market solution.”

· Gas Infrastructure Europe stated that: “Gas Infrastructures are needed to ensure the availability of CNG and LNG as alternative fuels. Gas infrastructure investments entail long-lead times and thus require long-term visibility. A sound investment climate together with a stable and predictable regulatory framework is fundamental for the development of infrastructure.”

· Polis declared that “[The public sector] should intervene at least with regulation.”

· The Port of Rotterdam stated that “Policy instruments could be used to cover financial/operational risks taken by the private sector investing in alternative fuel technology.”

· Shell points out that “There is clearly work needed on harmonization of standards”.

· The European Hydrogen Association (EHA) underlined the need to support the activities of local alternative fuel technology and business clusters, facilitating industrial investment incentives and ensuring a sustainable level of SME participation in large EU transport infrastructure programmes.

The majority of respondents consider that:

· EU actions should not be limited to ensuring the relevant infrastructure standards in order to achieve a consistent and significant deployment of alternative fuels.

· Voluntary action of industry alone cannot achieve the development of the refuelling/recharging infrastructures required for travelling across the whole EU on alternative fuels.

· EU legislation requiring minimum refuelling/recharging infrastructures is needed.

In particular:

· ACEA declared that “The parallel development of vehicle technology and infrastructure needs coordination and common policies. In some areas this has already failed, e.g. HFCV and hydrogen filling infrastructure.”

· Renault stated that “In addition to the relevant infrastructure standards and deployment, it is important to ensure the visibility of the full support of the European public authorities to the zero emissions technologies. Only with a transparent and clear support at European level it will be possible to have a quick market introduction at the level of the Member States.”

· Shell underlines that “the EU should promote public funding in PPP projects”

· Better Place, Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile and UITP stated that privileged access to access restriction zones and lower charging tariffs for infrastructure use could be supportive measures.

· UITP considers that here should be no obligations to introduce a specific alternative fuel for public transport. If legislation is chosen, there should be no actions that put un-proportionate burden on public transport undertakings and public transport authorities only.

· HyER (Hydrogen and Electromobility European Regions) considers that “next to the necessary policy action at EU level, as support for general standardisation of vehicles and refuelling and recharging infrastructure, tax incentives as well as risk-sharing financial schemes, national and regional policy support needs to be leveraged to facilitate a rapid up-take of alternative fuels and customer acceptance”.

Appendix 3: Existing or planned initiatives at European level affecting the uptake of alternative fuels

(1) Decision No 406/2009/EC on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020

(2) Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

COM (2012) 271 Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market

(3) Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity

COM (2011) 169 Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC

(4) Directive 2009/30/EC amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels

(5) Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles

(6) Regulation 443/2009/EC establishing CO2 emissions performance requirements for new passenger cars

(7) Regulation 510/2011/EC establishes CO2 emissions performance requirements for new light commercial vehicles

(8) COM (2010) 186 European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles

(9) Strategy for heavy-duty vehicle emissions

(10) Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

(11) Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants

(12) COM (2005) 261 Proposal for a Council Directive of 5 July 2005 on passenger car related taxes

(13) Green Cars Initiative

(14) Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

(15) Directive 1999/94/EC relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars

Appendix 4: Existing initiatives for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure

1. This appendix provides an overview of some of the national initiatives and policies implemented for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure.

Electricity

2. The following tables (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3) summarise some of the national initiatives and policies implemented for the deployment of EV charging infrastructure, together with national targets on infrastructure and vehicle deployment.

Table 1: Targets for electric vehicles, and existing policies for the deployment of infrastructure

Member States || Targets regarding electric vehicles (PHEVs and EVs) || Targets regarding infrastructure || Existing measures for the deployment of infrastructure

Austria || 2020[3]: 250,000 stock || By 2020: 4,500 semi-public charging stations || The National Implementation Plan for Electric Mobility covers the following topics: EVs, charging infrastructure, users (demands and requirements), preferential areas to start implementation, industrialization and the national economic policy, instruments for research, innovation and technology, energy systems and resources, integration of electric mobility in the transport system, environmental impacts, and laws and regulations to support innovation. Financial support : Support of € 1,000 was available in 2010 and 2011 for a charging Station (Klima: aktiv programme, Ministry of Environment). Also 30% of support for charging stations and incentives for E-Cars in 3 model regions.

Belgium || - || 2020 (tentative)[4]: - Slow: 35,000 – 130,000 charging stations - Fast 1,000 – 4,000 charging stations || Masterplan for electric mobility is being prepared covering the following topics: challenges for the infrastructure of charging stations, training for the service station mechanics towards the setup of new business models to make this new project successful. Financial support : For investment in infrastructure (i.e. public charging points), there is a 40% tax credit for individuals (max € 180, € 250 for 2010).

Bulgaria || - || - || Several large cities, including Sofia, have decided or are planning to provide street space for free parking of EVs next to charging stations. In Sofia several charging stations are in the process of being installed by the company FullCharger in cooperation with the street lighting company and the electric utility company CEZ.[5]

Czech Republic || - || - || Planned investments in public infrastructure (charging points), direct subsidies, fiscal incentives for the supply and operation of recharging system and for the purchase of EVs are already in place. The e-mobility project “futuremotion” (€ 20,000,000 budget until 2012), which initiated in Prague in 2009, includes the development of a public charging network.

Germany || 2020: 1,000,000 stock 2030: 5,000,000 stock[6] || 2012-2013: 2,000[7] || The Federal Government, together with industry, is making available € 2 billion to promote research on how people can maintain their mobility in the future despite fossil fuels growing scarce. For this reason they jointly created the “National Platform for Electric Mobility” in May 2010[8].

Denmark || 2015: 10-15,000 stock 2020: 50,000 stock[9] 2020: 200,000 stock[10] || 2020: 20,000 charging points[11] || In 2009, the Climate and Energy Agreement allocated DKK 30,000,000 (aprox. € 4,000,000) to promote demonstration programmes for battery EVs. The program is being administered by the Danish Energy Agency. DDK 200,000,000 (aprox. € 28,000,000) has been allocated specifically for demonstration projects between 2010 and 2013 that promote environmentally aware and energy-efficient transport solutions, including test projects with alternative types of fuels, electric cars, electric buses, and electric trucks. DKK 70,000,000 (aprox. € 9,400,000) are allocated to support infrastructure for electrical, hydrogen and gas cars. This will be launched in 2013.

Estonia || - || - || The electromobility program (2010): • An incentive scheme was introduced for electric car buyers. 50% or up to € 18,000 is compensated, plus € 1,000 is provided for the installation of a charger at home or office. • A country-wide fast charger network is being built so that the distance of fast chargers will not be more than 50 km. The network is expected to be in use starting from 2013.

Greece[12] || - || By 2020: 6,900 public double outlet charging points in the main urban areas || Governmental support A Special Commission, constituted by the decision of the Minister of Energy and Climate Changes (Ministerial Act 21612/20.9.2011) is charged with the responsibility of identification of the pillars needed for the development of a substantial market penetration of the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Hellenic Institute of Electric vehicles (HEL.I.E.V) is member of this Commission. Major section of the Commission’s work is the planning of the necessary infrastructure in the form of private and public networks suitable to cover the demand expected until the end of the decade (2020). The result of this investigation has already been submitted to the Ministry and the next expected step is the announcement of a call for bids for the supply and installation of two demonstrative EV’s charging networks, in collaboration with two selected municipalities located nearby of the two major urban centers of Athens and Thessaloniki. Additionally a link constituted by some fast chargers will be realized along the connecting main road axis of each one of these municipalities with the corresponding major urban center. The expected budget for these demonstrative and pilot networks is estimated to reach € 3,000,000. . Regional support - Next to the realization of the above demonstrative networks and the evaluation of its techno-economic parameters, a report will be forwarded to the 13 regions of the country with proposals/suggestions for the planning and creation of Regional EV charging station networks. It is estimated that a total number of 6.900 public double outlet charging points should be in operation in the main urban areas of the country in the year 2020. Municipalities’ support - The interest of municipalities is attracted by the possibility to combine small photovoltaic installations of 10 kWh installed on top of EV charging parking lots, whose legislation permits the connection of these small energy production units with the grid without the same bureaucratic procedures needed for photovoltaic generators with bigger capacity. By selling the generated energy to the grid on a permanent basis during a reasonable time period, they can balance the initial cost of the whole equipment.

Spain || 2012: 72,000 stock[13] 2014: 1,000,000 stock[14] 2020: 2,500,000 stock[15] || 2014[16]: Homes: 62,000 Public parking: 12,150 Public road-side: 6,200 charging points || The Spanish Strategy for Energy Savings and Efficiency 2004–2012 includes the promotion of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies (LPG, natural gas, HEV, PHEV, BEV, hydrogen and fuel cells) as a key action line. In April 2010, Spain’s national government also presented the “Integral Plan for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles”, which includes an “Integrated Strategy for EVs 2010–2014”. Governmental support - MOVELE’s plan (El Plan de Accion del Vehiculo Electrico - Ministry of Industry) supports the installation of charging station in three cities (Barcelona, Madrid, Sevilla) subsidies 40% of the price of the station. Regional support - At a regional level each Autonomous Community can develop a plan to support EVs. Andalusia, Castilla y Leon & Navarra have a plan and are supporting the installation of charging points. In Andalusia, the economic support for the installation of charging station is around 25% of the costs.[17]

France || 2015: 450,000 2020: 2,000,000 stock[18] || 1,250 public stations to be installed by 2012 in 20 cities 2015: 900,000 private and 7,500 public charging points 2020: 4,000,000 private and 400,000 public charging by 2020[19] || The Grenelle II legislation adopted in July 2010 addresses a number of environmental topics, including EV charging. Governmental support - € 50,000,000 between 2011 and 2015 for funding 50% of for normal and fast charging stations in 20 demonstrative cities. Regional and Municipalities’ support - The same cities should finance the other 50%. The situation is different in Paris, where 300 charging points had been build 15 years ago. The Autolib system of e-car renting counts today 250 stations, each of them has 4 to 6 plugs, 10% open to other cars. It has been financed by the operating company, group Bollore. The old ones are supposed to be replaced by the new ones.

Ireland || 2020: 230,000 stock[20] 2020: 350,000 stock[21] || 2015: 6,000 charging points 2020: 25,000 public charging points[22] || E-car Ireland[23] Electric vehicles are exempt from the registration tax until 30 April 2011. From 1 May, they will benefit from VRT relief of maximum € 5,000. Plug-in hybrids benefit from VRT relief of maximum € 2,500 until 31 December 2012. Conventional hybrid vehicles and other flexible fuel vehicles benefit from VRT relief of maximum € 1,500 until 31 December 2012.

Italy || By 2015: 100,000 EV passenger cars and 30,000 EV commercial vans - sales[24] || 1,000 charging points 2013: 588 public charging stations 2014: 150 public[25] || Governmental support: - Draft bylaw in discussion at the Parliament in the framework of a public support to electrical road mobility. - 5 pilot projects partially supported until 2015 by the Italian Authority for Energy, for building in total more than 1,000 public charging points in different cities such Roma, Milano, Napoli, Bari, Catania, Genova, Bologna, Perugia, but also in other cities in Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy regions and in commercial sites. Among the above charging points, 200 have been supported also by the Ministry of Environment and 150 by Lombardy Region.

Luxemburg || 2020: 40,000 stock[26] || - || € 5,000 Grant for private purchase of electric vehicles.

Malta || - || - || Malta has various initiatives to promote EVs particularly in city centres such as Valletta. For instance, Transport Malta recently held a seminar in Malta to promote new regulations which provide incentives for transport operators to operate electric mini cabs for taxi services.

Netherlands || 2015: 20,000 stock 2020: 200,000 stock[27] || 2013: 10,000 public charging stations 50 fast charging stations[28] || Formula E-team’s[29] activities for vehicles and infrastructure deployment can be summarized as follows: test projects for hybrid and electric mobility (9 projects), establishment of a committee under the standards organization of the Netherlands for electric transport (an agreement on standardized plugs); global access to charging facilities in the implementation phase; government roadmap for development of a market model for charging services; exemption from private motor vehicle and motor cycle tax (BPM) and motor vehicle tax (MRB); e-mobility program (e-rijden), which focuses on operating electric vehicles and licensing charging points along motorways. Amsterdam will implement at least 200 charging points in the city in the next two years and expects to have 10,000 EVs by 2015.[30]

Poland || || 2013: 300 charging points[31] || The activities from the “public support for infrastructure electromobility” of Warsaw were launched in 2009. Within the EU project the first charging points in Warsaw were constructed, while the first e-cars were tested by the local police and municipal service. The Warsaw City Hall works on implementation and preparation of pilot projects aimed at popularization of electric cars by creating adequate charging infrastructure together with RWE Poland.[32]

Portugal || 2020: 200,000 stock[33] || 2020: 25,000[34] || National Program for Electric Mobility - The government project Mobi-E: Construction of a nationwide charging points network. € 5,000 purchasing grant for a vehicle (first 5,000 vehicles), exemption from road tax; € 1,500 subsidy for trading the old car for an EV. The 1,300 public normal charging stations will be installed in the following municipalities: Almada, Aveiro, Beja, Braga, Bragança, Cascais, Castelo Branco, Coimbra, Évora, Faro, Guarda, Guimarães, Leiria, Lisboa, Loures, Portalegre, Porto, Santarém, Setúbal, Sintra, Torres Vedras, Viana do Castelo, Vila Nova de Gaia, Vila Real e Viseu. Additional 50 public fast charging stations, will be installed in primary roads and highways connecting the mentioned municipalities, which will allow travelling between them, and in strategic areas to guarantee emergency charges.[35]

Romania || - || - || The Government set up a special working group for developing the e-mobility strategy in Romania, subsidies for EV purchase recently introduced (up to € 3,700).[36]

Sweden || 2020: 600,000 stock[37] 2020: 18,000 sales[38] || - || The City of Gothenburg aims to evaluate 500 charging stations. Initially, 250 vehicles will be involved in the activity. The Swedish Hybrid Centre2 is managing many of these efforts and acts as a hub for knowledge and development[39].

Slovenia || 2030: 23% (14,062) stock[40],[41] || - || No current public support at national or regional level for charging infrastructures. Subsidies for purchase of EVs: In 2011 and 2012, a support for legal entities and natural persons (€ 500,000 each year): - for purchase of new EV or PHEV between € 5,000 (M1 category) and € 2,000 (L6e[42] category) - for remodeling of vehicles with IC motor to electric drive between € 4,000 (M1 category) and €1,000 (L6e category)[43]

United Kingdom || 2020: 1,200,000 stock EVs 350,000 stock PHEVs 2030: 3,300,000 stock EVs 7,900,000 stock PHEVs[44] || By 2020 : 8,500 charging points[45] || Plugged-in-Places project GBP 400,000,000 for “green cars” in 2008-2012, of which: GBP 30,000,000 for charging network, GBP 10,000,000 for test projects in 2009 and 2010, GBP 120,000,000 for R&D (loans to market players).

Table 2: Overview table of Member States’ targets for electric vehicles

Member state || 2015 || 2020 || 2030

Austria[46] || - || 250,000 (stock) || -

Belgium || - || || -

Bulgaria || - || - || -

Cyprus || - || - || -

Czech Republic || - || - || -

Germany[47] || - || 1,000,000 (stock) || 5,000,000 (stock)

Denmark[48] || 10,000 – 15,000 (stock) || 50,000 (stock)[49] 200,000 (stock) [50] || -

Estonia || - || - || -

Greece || - || - || -

Spain[51] || 1,000,000[52] || 2,500,000 (stock) || -

Finland || - || - || -

France || 450,000 (stock) || 2,000,000 (stock)[53] || -

Hungary || - || - || -

Ireland || - || 230,000 (stock)[54] 350,000 (stock) [55] || -

Italy || 130,000 (stock) [56] || - || -

Lithuania || - || - || -

Luxembourg || - || 40,000 (stock)[57] || -

Latvia || - || - || -

Malta || - || - || -

Netherlands || 20,000 (stock) || 200,000 (stock)[58] || -

Poland || - || - || -

Portugal || - || 200,000 (stock)[59] || -

Romania || - || - || -

Sweden || - || 600,000 (stock)[60] 18,000 sales[61] || -

Slovenia || - || 23% (approx. 14,062 stock - based on existing new vehicles registration for 2011)[62],[63] || -

Slovak Republic || - || - || -

UK || - || 1,200,000 stock EVs 350 000 stock PHEVs[64] || 3,300,000 stock EVs 7,900,000 stock PHEVs[65]

Table 3: Overview table of Member States’ targets for deployment of EV charging points

Member state || Functional || 2012-2013 Under construction || 2014-2016 Planned || 2020 Proposed

Austria || 489[66] || - || - || Semi-public 4,500 [67]

Belgium || 188[68] || - || - || Public: 35,000 – 130,000 Public Fast 1,000 – 4,000[69]

Bulgaria || 1[70] || - || - || -

Cyprus || - || - || - || -

Czech Republic || Private 3 Public 20[71] || Public 250[72] || - || -

Germany || Private 613 Public 836 Semi-public 488[73] || 2,000[74] || - || -

Denmark || Public 280[75] || 30 || || Public 20,000[76]

Estonia || 2[77] || - || 250[78] || -

Greece || - || - || - || Public 6,900[79]

Spain || Public 731 LDVs: 625[80],[81] || - || Private: 325,000[82] Public parking : 12,150 Public road-side : 6,200 || -

Finland || 1[83] || - || - || -

France[84] || 236 || STET 1,250 || Private 900,000 Public 7,500 || Private: 4,000,000 Public: 400,000

Hungary || 7[85] || - || - || -

Ireland[86] || Public: 640 of which are 27 fast charge points || || 6,000 || Public: 25,000

Italy[87] || 1,000 || Public: 588 || 150 ||

Lithuania || - || - || - || -

Luxembourg || 7[88] || - || || -

Latvia || 1[89] || - || - || -

Malta || - || - || - || -

Netherlands || 1,700 || Public: 10,000 Fast: 50[90] || - || -

Poland[91] || Public: 27[92] || 300 || - || -

Portugal[93] || Public 1,300 Fast 50 charging station || || || Public 25,000

Romania || - || - || - || -

Sweden || - || - || - || -

Slovenia || - || - || - || -

Slovak Republic || 3[94] || - || - || -

UK || 703[95] || - || - || 8,500[96]

Hydrogen

3. In the following, some of the national initiatives and policies implemented for the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure, together with industry-led action, are described.

4. Many of the first hydrogen refuelling stations have been co-financed by regional and local authorities operating or financing captive fleets (i.e. bus fleets or cars that are part of public fleets). The first industry initiatives to establish a national network of stations are the “H2 Mobility” initiative in Germany, with similar initiatives in the UK[97] and France[98] (e.g. Clean Hydrogen in European Cities Project), mostly focused on refuelling passenger cars.

Germany – H2 Mobility

5. The partners of the initiative “H2 Mobility” are Linde, Daimler, EnBW, OMV, Shell, Total, Vattenfall and the NOW GmbH National Organisation Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology. During the 1st phase of the project, kicked-off in 2008, an evaluation of options of where to place hydrogen fuelling stations in Germany took place, as well as the definition of a joint business plan agreement, setting out possible public support measures. During the 2nd phase, the installation of new hydrogen fuelling stations must take place in order to develop hydrogen fuelling stations network that will facilitate the introduction of hydrogen powered vehicles by 2015. This initiative falls under the framework of the German economic stimulus package (Konjunkturpaket II) and other national and state programs in order to look into standardization and cost reduction issues[99].

Italy, UK, Norway, Switzerland – The Clean Hydrogen in European Cities Project (CHIC)

6. The Clean Hydrogen in European Cities Project (CHIC) was launched in 2010. The project involves integrating 26 fuel cell buses in daily public transport operations and bus routes in five locations across Europe – Aargau (Switzerland), Bolzano/Bozen (Italy), London (UK), Milan (Italy), and Oslo (Norway). The CHIC project is supported by the European Union Joint Undertaking for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH JU) with funding of € 26,000,000, and has 25 partners from across Europe, which includes industrial partners for vehicle supply and refuelling infrastructure. The project is based on a staged introduction and build-up of FCH bus fleets, the supporting hydrogen refuelling stations and infrastructure in order to facilitate the smooth integration of the FCH buses in Europe’s public transport system.[100]

United Kingdom – UKH2 Mobility

7. In January 2012, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills launched the project UKH2 Mobility in partnership with the industry. The Government is investing £ 400,000,000 to support the development, demonstration and deployment of hydrogen vehicles. The project will evaluate the potential for hydrogen as a fuel for Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles in the UK before developing an action plan for an anticipated roll-out to consumers in 2014/15.

8. The objectives of UKH2 Mobility are as follows:

9. Analyse in detail the specific UK case for the introduction of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles as one of a number of solutions to decarbonise road transport and quantify the potential emissions benefits;

10. Review the investments required to commercialise the technology, including refuelling infrastructure; and

11. Identify what is required to make the UK a leading global player in hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle manufacturing thereby paving the way for economic opportunities to the UK, through the creation of new jobs and boosting of local economies.[101]

United Kingdom – £ 19,000,000 investment in hydrogen fuel cell projects

12. In July 2012, the Technology Strategy Board and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announced that they will invest £ 9,000,000 for six new projects. The objective of the projects is to demonstrate the potential of fuel cell systems and hydrogen technology which can be integrated into energy and transport industries.

13. The projects are co-financed by private industry and they will include the creation of the UK’s first end-to-end, integrated, hydrogen production, distribution and retailing system, centred around a fully publicly accessible 700 bar renewable H2 refuelling station network across London.[102]

United Kingdom – Isle of Wight[103]

14. The Isle of Wight, off the UK’s south coast is test project for hydrogen fuel technology in a £ 4,660,000 project led by energy storage and clean fuel company ITM Power. £ 1,300,000 of the budget is financed by a grant from the government-backed Technology Strategy Board.

15. The project will design, build, install and operate two grid-connected hydrogen refuelling platforms on the Isle of Wight. A 15kg/day refueller will be used in a marine capacity located on the south coast of the Island, and a larger 100kg/day unit will be installed on a centrally located business park for the operation of a fleet of hydrogen vehicles including Hyundai, Microcab and River Simple. Vehicles showcased will include Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) cars, Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (HICE) vans and a HICE boat. ITM Power will design and build two refuellers and take a key role in the system integration.

16. The Technology Strategy Board is also sponsoring five other projects which include an end-to-end, green hydrogen production, distribution and retailing system in London, a wind-powered hydrogen generation system in Aberdeen to serve a fleet of fuel cell buses and two solar-generated hydrogen projects in Swindon and Surrey.

17. The Isle of Wight is part of the Ecoisland project – a community-based initiative aiming to make the Isle of Wight self-sustaining by the end of the decade. The island will be home to a hydrogen energy production, storage and vehicle refuelling system, which will be integrated into the existing power network.

United Kingdom – London[104]“Hydrogen network”

18. In March 2010, the Mayor of London announced the creation of a “Hydrogen network” by 2012, in order to help accelerate the wider use of this zero-polluting, zero-carbon energy in the capital. The London Hydrogen Partnership (LHP) is working with London boroughs and private landowners on plans to deliver at least six refuelling sites to run hydrogen-powered vehicles in the capital over the next two years. One is already being built in east London for the refuelling of hydrogen-fuelled buses that will begin running on the RV1 route later this year.

19. One of the objectives of the action plan is to encourage a minimum of 150 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road in London by 2012. This includes cars, vans, taxis, motorbikes, and lorries. Fifty of the vehicles are expected to be operated by the Greater London Authority’s functional bodies – Transport for London (TfL); the London Development Agency (LDA); the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA); and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). The London Hydrogen Partnership and the Greater London Authority are also working with BAA on a hydrogen feasibility study to explore ways to use hydrogen and fuel cell technologies at Heathrow airport.

United Kingdom – London (part of the HyTEC project)

20. The HyTEC project (Hydrogen Transport in European Cities), which is co-funded by the European Union, will deploy up to 15 London black fuel cell taxis, five fuel cell scooters and a new H2 refuelling station operational in London by 2013.

21. The first hydrogen-powered taxis are now ready to operate and they will be used to transport VIPs during the Olympic period, and will be fuelled at Air Products’ new fuelling station at Heathrow airport. Copenhagen will be receiving ten fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV).[105] Also a hydrogen fuelling station is finalized in time for the Olympic Games.

Denmark – Copenhagen (part of the HyTEC project)

22. The vision of the city of Copenhagen is to become carbon neutral by 2025. It has adopted a new climate plan including a target of 85% of the municipality vehicle fleet by 2015 to be powered by electric propulsion systems (battery and/or hydrogen). The deployment of the passenger vehicles of the HyTEC project fits in perfectly with this ambitious goal and plan.

23. A new publicly accessible Central-Copenhagen refuelling station network, able to accommodate a minimum of 200 kg/day (across the network) 700 bar hydrogen refuelling according to SAE specifications. The city network is to be linked with other major cities in Denmark, contributing to the efforts of securing a countrywide station network beyond 2015.[106]

The Scandinavian Hydrogen Highway Partnership (SHHP)[107]

24. The SHHP is a partnership between local, regional and national authorities and private industries and research institutions. The national networking institutions are: HyNor (Norway), Hydrogen Sweden (Sweden) and Hydrogen Link (Denmark).

25. The objective of the SHHP is to make the Scandinavian region one of the first regions in Europe where hydrogen is commercially available and used in a network of refuelling stations.

26. The target by 2015 is to create a Hydrogen Refuelling Stations (HRS) network that includes:

27. 15 stations

28. 30 satellite stations

29. and a large fleet of vehicles: 100 buses, 500 cars and 500 speciality vehicles.

LNG

30. In the following, some of the national initiatives and policies implemented for the deployment of LNG infrastructure, together with industry-led action, are described.

The Netherlands – Green Deal LNG[108]

31. In June 2012, the representatives of the Dutch government (Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation and the Secretary of State), the Rotterdam Port Authority and their partners (3TU, VSL, TNO, Energy Valley, Deltalinqs), have signed the agreement “Green Deal LNG”. The main goal of the LNG Green Deal is to make the inland shipping, fisheries and marine more sustainable through the use of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) as fuel.

32. The Green Deal focuses on two specific areas: the Wadden and North Sea area and the Rhine between Rotterdam and Basel, including Amsterdam and Vlissingen. In both areas, initiatives are being developed, such as the LNG ferry owned by shipping company Doeksen between Harlingen and Terschelling, petrol station “Green Planet” in Pesse where an LNG tank infrastructure will be installed for heavy trucks and two Anthony Veder ethylene vessels, which will run between England and the European continent.

The Netherlands – The National LNG Platform[109]

33. The government also established the National LNG Platform. The Platform has a “50-50-500 objective”: at least 50 barges, 50 sea-going vessels and 500 trucks running on LNG by 2015. Initiators of the Platform are the two areas: the Wadden Sea-North Sea and the Rhine region from Rotterdam to Basel, Switzerland, which will include the cities of Amsterdam and Vlissingen, unified in Energy Valley (the energy cluster in the north of the Netherlands) and Deltalinqs (the business organization representing companies in the port of Rotterdam, part of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative). In addition, LNG TR&D (collaboration between 3TU, VSL and TNO).

Danube Region Masterplan[110]

34. The Danube region is preparing a Masterplan for the introduction of LNG as fuel and as cargo for Danube navigation. One of the targets of the EU Danube Strategy is the modernisation of the Danube fleet in order to improve environmental and economic performance. Switching from gasoil to LNG as fuel will have a contribution to this goal.

35. The Masterplan will investigate the benefits of implementing LNG as fuel and as cargo for the Danube fleet and identify obstacles and costs. It will develop a comprehensive strategy together with a detailed master plan for the necessary implementation steps.

36. The budget for the Masterplan is € 1,250,000 and around € 10-15,000,000 will be allocated for Pilot Implementations (2013 onwards). The project is financed by the Structural Funds, IPA, ENPI, TEN-T and by financial contributions from related private industry.

37. The project partners are: a consortium made up by barging companies, port and terminal operators, shipyards, government authorities, vessel classification societies, gas industry, key stakeholders for LNG use, LNG technology providers (storage, carriage, transhipment), and engine providers.

Belgium – LNG study[111]

38. The Flemish government and the port authorities signed a contract with Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV) to undertake a feasibility study for the provision of liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkering facilities at the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent in Belgium. The work will consist of a market survey, a risk and safety analysis, and modeling of the logistics, legal and regulatory requirements needed to establish LNG bunkering infrastructure at the ports.

Belgium – Port of Antwerp[112]

39. Port of Antwerp is part of the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH), within the World Ports Climate Initiative. The association organize workshops for port members on LNG and for the new workshop the Port of Antwerp was asked to be the lead port. In the last workshop on LNG several ports participated: ports of Amsterdam, Bremen, Brunsbüttel, Frederikstad, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Los Angeles, Oslo, Rotterdam and Stockholm, as well as the classification bureaus Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Germanischer Lloyd (GL-group) and the gas company Gasnor.

Appendix 5: Existing and expected alternative fuels infrastructure in the EU

Figure 1: Public charging points in the main urban areas of the EU[113]

Figure 2: Illustrative overview of announced plans of Member States for the deployment of charging points by 2020[114]

Figure 3: Existing and planned hydrogen fuelling stations in the EU[115]

Figure 4: Existing LNG terminals and L-CNG fuelling stations in the EU[116]

Appendix 6: The root causes of the insufficiency of the infrastructure for alternative fuels – Fuel-by-fuel analysis

Existing recharging/recharging equipment cannot be connected and is not interoperable in all related alternative fuel vehicles/vessels

Electricity

1. In June 2010, the Commission mandated[117] three standardisation organisations, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to develop European standards or to review existing ones in order to ensure interoperability and connectivity between the electricity supply and the EVs, including appropriate smart-charging issues[118], so that the charger can be connected and be interoperable in all vehicles. This work has not been concluded yet as no consensus was found to select either Type 2 or Type 3 EV charging socket (Figure ), which are both standardised under the same catalogue number 62196-2 of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). This current failure of voluntary standardisation can be principally traced back to vested industrial interests.

Figure 5: Three types of EV charging sockets[119]

2. This situation led to, on the one hand, the deployment of both charging sockets at the same time with France deploying Type 3 and other Member States deploying Type 2 sockets (Figure ), on the other hand, the delay by certain countries to deploy charging infrastructure at all. Stakeholders have repeatedly called for ending this deadlock, fearing that “this situation is not beneficial to e-mobility development”[120].

Figure 6: Choice of socket in various Member States[121]

Hydrogen

1. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)[122] and the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE)[123] have developed standards on hydrogen refuelling interface, hydrogen fuel quality, and hydrogen refuelling station safety. Some of them are being revised, such as ISO standards on gaseous hydrogen fuelling stations and on gaseous hydrogen land vehicle refuelling connection devices. The existing standards are currently applied voluntarily, and stakeholders have confirmed that although they are already instrumental in supporting deployment and gaining acceptance, their legislative establishment would be important.

Natural Gas (LNG and CNG)

LNG

Currently, for road vehicles, there are different LNG fuelling systems as LNG vehicle manufacturers use different engine inlet pressures. This has led the market to the existence of LNG storage tanks working at different pressures. This makes necessary for the refuelling infrastructure to be able to adapt to different existing systems.

1. Work is on-going within the ISO International Organization for Standardization for the development of LNG/L-CNG refuelling station standards and on LNG connectors and receptacles[124].

2. For international shipping, in addition to on-going work at Technical Committee 67 of the ISO, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is developing an international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying LNG (IGC Code). The IMO has also started work on a new international code on safety for gas-fuelled ships (IGF Code). In addition and complementing ISO and IMO, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGGTO) and the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) are also working on international standards, including for LNG bunkering and related port operations.

CNG

3. Currently, there is no EU applicable CEN standard for the build-up of CNG vehicles refuelling infrastructure. In the past, a process was created with the intention to fill this gap, and CEN worked over six years to prepare the prEN 13638 2007, project standard that had to be cancelled on its final approval step, as unanimity could not be achieved.

4. This fact has led to different countries creating national standards on this topic in order to answer the market demands. Some countries like Spain (UNE 60631), adopted this draft CEN standard as the national standard to follow in their territory.

5. ISO has recently created a new committee covering all the necessary aspects (design, construction, operation, maintenance and inspection) for CNG refuelling infrastructure. This committee is the TC/ 252 which is divided in two sub-groups separately dealing with the CNG and LNG/LCNG standards (ISO/WD 16923 and ISO/WD 16924 respectively). This committee is aiming at having the ISO standard ready by the second half of 2014.- Fuelling Stations: ISO/TC 252 is working on an international standard for fuelling stations for NGVs. The WG1 is dealing with the CNG standard, and the WG 2 with the LNG & L-CNG standard. Target date to deliver is mid-2015.

Investment uncertainty hinders the deployment of recharging/refuelling infrastructure for electricity, hydrogen and LNG

Electricity

1. Electricity recharging infrastructure is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty and risk. As regards electricity, the investment consists of building recharging points. The costs per smart[125] private charging point can be estimated to be around € 520; while for a publicly accessible charging point it is approximately € 5,280[126].

Figure 7: Estimates for investment and installation cost for single charging outlets[127]

2. Public charging points need to be smart, in the sense that there is controlled charging and vehicle-to-grid communication, in order to ensure that the impact on the grid is manageable, to ensure adequate billing and to ensure that the charging of EVs can contribute to grid flexibility. In particular, the price for electricity at a charging point needs to be able to reflect the electricity price in the wholesale market at the time of charging, i.e. the price for electricity in that particular period (e.g. a price per every 15 minutes)[128].

3. In addition, the existing grid will simultaneously require investment in sub-stations, in local stationary storage, in smart metering and in advanced control systems, in order to improve the balancing of demand and supply, to address grid congestion and peak shaving and to stabilise the voltage and the development of the electricity grid at large[129]. This is necessary as the use of the grid for EVs will be an additional demand for transport of electricity through the grid. Obviously, the additional demand for electricity from EVs will depend on the quantity of vehicles, their use, and the type of charging (slow or fast), and on local circumstances and current status of the electricity grid.

4. From an institutional perspective, the entities investing in recharging infrastructure will need to cooperate with the electricity distribution system operators (DSOs) and the grid owners. Fast charging points seem to be the most risky investments as they require high initial capital and their utilisation rates are difficult to foresee. Although the slow charging stations have lower unit costs, the relative short ranges of EVs imply that the charging infrastructure needs to initially develop with a sufficient density to incite consumers using such vehicles, and thus ensure utilisation rates that lead to a reasonable payback period.

5. These requirements imply that the initial amount of investment is substantial and has to take place before having certainty about the size of the EV fleet. Investors might need to impose a mark-up on the electricity price in order to recuperate their investment[130].

Hydrogen

1. Hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is characterised by an even higher degree of uncertainty and risk. The case of hydrogen implies building a production, transportation, distribution and retailing infrastructure, which do not exist today to the extent necessary for penetration in the transport sector. Consequently, the amount of initial investment is high. According to the Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels, the average capital cost of a hydrogen refilling station ranges from € 0.6-1.6 million.

2. From an institutional and business perspective, the transportation and distribution infrastructure has features similar to natural gas (e.g. with respect to regulation), whereas the retailing infrastructure can be handled on a pure private basis as the conventional pump stations. Studies show that, while the transportation of hydrogen can be done using trucks at the early stages of infrastructure development, the high capital cost of the hydrogen retailing stations and the (un)certainty of the utilisation rates are key factors for the viability of the investment.

Natural Gas (LNG and CNG)

1. The recovery of investment cost of an LNG bunkering facility station highly depends on the use of LNG as a fuel by shipowners. Such choice for LNG as alternative fuel is induced by two factors: the need for ships to reduce in particular sulphur emissions and the cost savings due to using LNG instead of oil.

2. According to an analysis undertaken by a recent TEN-T co-financed study[131], the investment cost is around 15,000,000 € for small scale, purpose-built LNG bunkering facility. The payback period for a local LNG bunkering infrastructure is expected to range between 8-15 years (allowing for lower LNG prices when choosing longer payback periods). The economies of scale prevail in the economics of LNG bunkering infrastructure investment and the demand for LNG. This implies that the higher the capacity of the terminal (m3), the lower the specific tank cost (€/m3 LNG). Similarly higher demand for LNG at a particular refuelling station can reduce the unit costs. Both may reduce the payback period.

3. As for LNG/ CNG fuelling stations, the investors face higher upfront initial costs compared to a conventional petrol station, in the range of 200,000-400,000 €[132]. For new dedicated LNG fuelling stations, in particular those that will be developed on inland waterways, it is assumed that LNG will be supplied to the fuelling stations in liquid form, and therefore will not interact with the natural gas transmission network.

Appendix 7: Detailed pre-screening of possible policy options

Possible combinations of soft and strict regulatory approaches

1. All possible combinations of soft and strict regulatory approaches are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Overview of the preliminary policy options

Operational objective 1 Operational objective 2 || No EU intervention || Voluntary standardisation || Mandatory application of common standards

No EU intervention || Preliminary Policy Option (PPO) 1 || PPO2 || PPO3

Indicative targets at Member States level and industry self-regulation || PPO4 || PPO5 || PPO6

Binding targets at Member States level || PPO7 || PPO8 || PPO9

2. As a result of the evaluation of stakeholder and expert input, four preliminary policy options were selected for further analysis that reflect the whole range of possible combination of soft and strict regulatory approaches: PPO1, PPO5, PPO6 and PPO9. The remaining preliminary policy options were discarded for not being capable of simultaneously achieving the specific objectives 1 and 2:

· Providing the investors with certainty on technical standards would not be sufficient to create a business case for infrastructure in the absence of sufficient demand for vehicles, nor would be enough to drive consumer demand before the recharging/refuelling network is actually in place (PPO2, PPO3). Conversely, quantitative targets on the deployment of infrastructure would not automatically harmonise the required technical standards (PPO4, PPO7);

· while it is theoretically possible to apply stricter policy measures to address the coordination failure causing investment uncertainty, it does not appear reasonable to do so without an appropriate level of harmonisation in the ‘quality’ of infrastructure to be deployed (PPO4, PPO7, PPO8).

Possible combinations of the various fuels

3. The combination of various policy approaches as described above can be taken forward to apply to the three fuels (and in case of LNG, either to vessels and/or to heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs)) in differing degrees. All possible combinations with the selected preliminary policy options are shown on Table 5, except for those that are strongly interlinked: the deployment of LNG for HDVs is not feasible without the prior or parallel deployment of LNG for vessels.

Table 5: Overview of the possible combinations of the various fuels

|| Electricity || Electricity & Hydrogen || Electricity & Hydrogen & LNG for vessels || Electricity & Hydrogen & LNG for vessels & LNG for trucks & CNG for vehicles || Electricity & LNG for vessels || Electricity & LNG for vessels & LNG for trucks & CNG for vehicles || Hydrogen || Hydrogen & LNG for vessels || Hydrogen & LNG for vessels & LNG for trucks & CNG for vehicles || LNG for vessels || LNG for vessels & LNG for trucks & CNG for vehicles || LNG for trucks & CNG for vehicles

|| 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || 11 || 12

PPO1 || Fuel combination (FC) 1 || FC2 || FC3 || FC4 || FC5 || FC6 || FC7 || FC8 || FC9 || FC10 || FC11 || FC12

PPO5 || FC13 || FC14 || FC15 || FC16 || FC17 || FC18 || FC19 || FC20 || FC21 || FC22 || FC23 || FC24

PPO6 || FC25 || FC26 || FC27 || FC28 || FC29 || FC30 || FC31 || FC32 || FC33 || FC34 || FC35 || FC36

PPO9 || FC37 || FC38 || FC39 || FC40 || FC41 || FC42 || FC43 || FC44 || FC45 || FC46 || FC47 || FC48

4. The number of possible combinations is very large, however most of them would violate technological neutrality and would strongly favour the deployment of one specific fuel over the other technologies. This possible course of action was rejected by stakeholders in the consultation process, is not consistent with previous Commission analysis and policy documents and is not warranted by any clear technical or economic superiority of any particular technology.

5. Technological neutrality is only ensured in combinations where all fuels, which face the problems identified in Section 2, of the IA are covered. Hence, the combinations in columns 1-3 and 5-12 are discarded, and only FC4, FC16, FC28 and FC40 are taken forward.

6. In spite of this, it is possible to address all fuels, but with a differing of policy intervention as envisaged under the preliminary policy options. The possible ‘packages’ of fuel combinations are highlighted in Table 5, and are as follows:

· Fuel Package I (FC7 + FC12 + FC17): together with voluntary standardisation, indicative targets would be set only for electricity and LNG for vessels, but there would be no EU action on hydrogen, LNG for trucks and CNG for vehicles.

· Fuel Package II (FC6 + FC19): together with voluntary standardisation, indicative targets would be set only for hydrogen, but there would be no EU action on electricity and natural gas (LNG and CNG).

· Fuel Package III (FC31 + FC36 + FC41): together with mandatory application of common standards for all fuels, mandatory targets would be set only for electricity and LNG for vessels. Indicative targets would apply for hydrogen and LNG for trucks and CNG for vehicles.

· Fuel Package IV (FC30 + FC43): together with mandatory application of common standards for all fuels, mandatory targets would be set only for hydrogen. Indicative targets would apply for electricity and natural gas (LNG and CNG).

7. Out of these 8 technologically-neutral combinations, four (FC4, FC16, FC40 and Fuel Package III) have been selected for further analysis. The remaining four combinations (FC28, Fuel Packages I, II and IV) were discarded for the following reasons:

· It is unjustified to apply a stricter regulatory approach to fuels and technological solutions that are in an earlier stage of technological maturity (Fuel Package II and IV).

· Mandatory application of standards coupled with industry self-regulation for all alternative fuel infrastructure (FC28) will not be effective due to the very large number of industries that would need to be involved and come to a consensus: fuel suppliers, electricity providers, vehicle manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and mobility service providers. The stakeholder consultation[133] confirmed that the likelihood of vested interests in certain technologies preventing cross-industry agreements would be very high.

Appendix 8: Possible legislative formulations in the Policy Options

1. Addressing problem driver 1 (“Existing recharging/refuelling equipment cannot be connected and is not interoperable in all related alternative fuel vehicles/vessels”):

· All recharging stations for electric vehicles should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] be compliant with the technical standards no later than from 2015,

2. All hydrogen refuelling facilities for road transport vehicles should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] be compliant with the technical standards no later than from 2015.

3. All LNG refuelling facilities for waterborne vessels should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] be compliant with the technical standards no later than from 2015.

4. All LNG refuelling facilities for trucks and CNG for vehicles should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] be compliant with the technical standards no later than from 2015.

5. Addressing problem driver 2 (“Investment uncertainty hinders the deployment of recharging/refuelling infrastructure for electricity, hydrogen and natural gas (LNG and CNG)”):

6. Member States should [PO3] / shall [PO3, PO4] ensure that a minimum number of recharging points for electric vehicles are established according to the targets set for each Member State no later than by 2020. At least 10% of this minimum number of recharging points shall be publicly accessible recharging points.

Table 6: Minimum number of electric vehicle charging points in each Member State (in thousands)

MS || Number of charging points || Number of publicly accessible charging points

BE || 207 || 21

BG || 69 || 7

CZ || 129 || 13

DK || 54 || 5

DE || 1503 || 150

EE || 12 || 1

IE || 22 || 2

EL || 128 || 13

ES || 824 || 82

FR || 969 || 97

IT || 1255 || 125

CY || 20 || 2

LV || 17 || 2

LT || 41 || 4

LU || 14 || 1

HU || 68 || 7

MT || 10 || 1

NL || 321 || 32

AT || 116 || 12

PL || 460 || 46

PT || 123 || 12

RO || 101 || 10

SI || 26 || 3

SK || 36 || 4

FI || 71 || 7

SE || 145 || 14

UK || 1221 || 122

HR || 38 || 4

7. Member States should [PO2, PO3] / shall [PO4] ensure that existing hydrogen refuelling stations are connected via the Trans-European Transport Core Network (TEN-T) with a maximum distance of 300 km between stations, no later than by 2020.

8. Member States should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] ensure that LNG refuelling facilities for waterborne vessels are established in all maritime ports of the TEN-T Core Network no later than by 2020.

9. Member States should [PO2] / shall [PO3, PO4] ensure that LNG refuelling facilities for waterborne vessels are established in all inland ports of the TEN-T Core Network, which are located on one of the corridors identified in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe, no later than by 2020.

1. Member States should [PO2, PO3] / shall [PO4] ensure that a minimum number of publicly accessible LNG refuelling stations for trucks are established along the principal motorways of the TEN-T Core Network, identified as being parallel to one of the corridors identified in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility no later than by 2020. The maximum distance between the refuelling stations should be 400 km. In addtion, CNG publicly accessible refuelling points are available, with maximum distances of 150 km, to allow the circulation of CNG vehicles Union-wide by 2020.

Table 7: Overview of regulatory approaches in the policy options

Policy Option || 2 || 3 || 4

Problem driver 1 || Soft (“should”) || Strict (“shall”) || Strict (“shall”)

Problem driver 2 || Soft (“should”) || Soft (“should”) / Strict (“shall”) || Strict (“shall”)

Appendix 9: Illustration of possible implementation measures

Protection of first mover investors on infrastructure

1. First mover investors, and - to a smaller extent - follower investors, are confronted with high upfront costs and uncertain payback times for investments due to the low diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles and vessels and, consequently, the initially slack demand for alternative fuels.

2. Moreover, first mover investors run the risk of losing some of their future profits to market players who will enter the market at a later stage when the demand for the marketed product consolidates, and uncertainty on financial viability is reduced. Such a risk discourages first movers’ investments. The policy instruments that have been identified as adapt to protect first investors are:

The granting of exclusivity rights to first mover investors

3. An example of how exclusivity rights protected first investors is that of telecommunications. Market entry for mobile communications has been initially facilitated by a policy granting licenses only to few potential investors. The aim was to tolerate oligopoly rents at a certain extent as a means of ensuring that service prices above marginal costs would be sufficient to recover upfront investment. This was justified by the market circumstances in the initial phases of mobile communications characterised by high uncertainty about future demand for mobile telecommunications.

Awarding concessions

4. Concessions in ports are granted by the port authority (usually public body or corporatized public entity) to private investors in order to operate the port terminal efficiently. The investor uses and improves (maintains, repairs) the infrastructure provided by the port authority and further invests in superstructure (equipment for handling the cargo). Port authorities can make joint investments with the private operators in port related infrastructure like barge and rail terminals.

Direct public financial support

5. Funding support is necessary to lower the risk premium, calculated based on the initial capital costs for alternative fuel infrastructure, which are generally higher than those for petroleum-based fuels due to the lack of economies of scale on the side of alternative fuelling equipment manufacturers, and the expected financial returns. Direct public financial support can take various forms such as grant loans or loan guarantees and public-private partnerships (PPPs). Incentives are not a standalone instrument and further instruments are necessary.

Public guarantees

6. These measures are dedicated to the implementation of infrastructure with high risks of non-profit. Public guarantees can lower the risk of financing the infrastructure by guaranteeing loans or guarantees in the form of state aid. Specifically, public guarantees can assist the investor in obtaining a loan in better financial terms.

The use of public procurement

7. Public procurement allows for risk sharing. Public procurement contracts for the introduction of alternative fuels through public fleets would mean that the technology would first be trialled through publicly financed demonstration projects and in case it failed commercially the loss would be compensated to the investor.

Measures to promote alternative fuels

The example of Sweden: renewable fuel obligation on filling stations

8. Ethanol 85 was introduced in Sweden in 2006 on the grounds of the “pump law”, where the government, the national car manufacturers and the oil companies cooperated in an efficient way. The law obliged all filling stations selling more than 3000 cubic meters of fuel per year to supply at least one kind of renewable fuel. Due to lower capital cost required for biofuels infrastructure, most petrol stations added additional outlets for E85 instead of biogas, which would have required higher investments, and arguably would have been more socially beneficial on the medium and long-term. In parallel, the government gave incentives to consumers to purchase flex-fuel cars, in order to facilitate the economic viability of such infrastructure investments. This resulted in increased use of E85 as a transportation fuel.

The example of France: introduction of national targets[134]

9. National targets of 4.4 million charging points supported by national laws adopted in July 2010 and July 2011.

10. “Grenelle II Law” from July 12th, 2010 sets requirements for every newly built residential complex (at least two residential units) with securised parking spaces or an individual parking garage to be equipped with cables, cable ducts and safety equipment needed to install charging electrical outlets for electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle as long as the request for building permit is submitted after January 1st 2012.

11. The law also sets a modification of co-ownership rules in condominiums already built obliging the co-owners assembly to put the topic of works to allow recharging of electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles on its agenda and the decision to install the recharging station shall be a majority vote of all co-owners. Also, the owner or the building management of a residential complex cannot object to a request of a lessee regarding the installation of charging infrastructure without “a serious and legitimate reason“.

12. According to this law, already built office buildings used mainly as workplace and with parking lots for employees’ cars must be equipped with charging infrastructure before January 1st 2015.

13. The national law from July 2011[135] requires at least 10% of existing individual parking spaces (with minimum of at last 1) to be equipped with independent electric lines to low charging points in condominiums for which the building permit was submitted after January 1st 2012 and in existing buildings from January 2015.

14. For newly built office buildings (i.e. those whose request for building permit was submitted after January 1st 2012) the law obliges the owner to electrify the car park and to design all or some of the spaces to allow charging stations on a minimum of 10% of all spaces.

15. For “existing buildings” (i.e. those for which a request for building permit was submitted before January 1st 2012), the law obliges the owner to install charging stations to cover at least 10 % of the parking spaces in urban areas with more than 50,000 inhabitants, 5 % in other cases, provided that the building and car park is owned and occupied by one and the same person.

The example of Estonia: the electromobility programme (2010)[136]

16. In March 2011, the Government of Estonia signed a contract with Mitsubishi Corporation for the sale of 10 million AAUs to start the Estonian electromobility programme. Besides achieving better city environment, energy efficiency and fuel independence, the government of Estonia also recognised the opportunity for positive branding to become the first demo-country in the world to be using innovative technologies and covering the whole territory with quick electric charging points.

17. Programme is fully financed by the Mitsubishi Corporation and consists of three pillars:

18. In May 2012, 507 Mitsubishi iMiev electric cars were given in use to different public sector organisations as an example and to promote electric cars (most of these are used by social workers all over Estonia, but also by the police and air force for example).

19. In July 2011, an incentive scheme was introduced for private and corporate pucharses buying an electric car. The purpose of the grant is to decrease the pollution load of transport. 50% or up to € 18,000 of the cost of the car is compensated, plus € 1,000 is provided for the installation of a charger at home or office. Eligibility date for the grant scheme is the end of 2012 and the goal of the scheme is to provide grant for approx. 500 cars.

20. The goal of selling 500 electric cars with the purchase grant already by the end of 2012 turned out to be too ambitious. As of October 2012, 94 purchase grant applications have been submitted (75 grants have been awarded). Also in July, government gave an authorisation to sign amendments to the contract with Mitsubishi Corporation to prolong support scheme until the end of 2014.

21. With the proposed amendment of July 2012, the selection the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles would be also added. The grant amount for plug-in hybrids shall be up to 30% of the purchase price, but not more than 12,000 euros per vehicle. The more detailed terms are being presently developed.

22. A quick charging infrastructure for electric cars will be created to cover the whole country by the end of 2012 to ensure sufficient freedom of movement for all users of electric cars. There will be 163 quick charging points with the distance not more than 40-60 km between them. The network will be covering all roads with intense traffic, settlements with population over 5000 inhabitants and ports serving local and international travel. The chargers will be built in locations where people would move anyway – petrol stations, shopping centres, parking lots, banks etc. It is expected that while finishing the quick charging infrastructure by the end of the 2012, the grant scheme will also be fully exhausted.

23. As part of the programme an extensive survey of user experience of electric cars is planned.

The example of Bulgaria

24. Bulgarian government started drafting the national action plan aimed at promoting the development of sustainable transport, including electric mobility in Bulgaria, for the period 2012–2014 in the beginning of 2012 and it was submitted to the Council of Ministers in August 2012[137]. The legislation intended to introduce a preference for electric car owners – free parking in all cities, as well as the opportunity for those vehicles to drive in the bus lanes. Additional stimulus for electric vehicle owners in Bulgaria has been proposed by ministers, like offering value-added-tax, local tax and registration fees exemptions and also from the obligation of buying a vignette.

25. In Sofia several charging stations are in the process of being installed by the company FullCharger in cooperation with the street lighting company and the electric utility company CEZ. As of October 2012, there a total of ten charging stations in Sofia and one station in Dobrich installed by FullCharger[138].

26. For the near future, plans for the con­struc­tion of a grid of 150-200 charg­ing points by end 2012 in Sofia and big Bul­gar­i­an cit­ies are under way. The next two years will see install­ing charg­ing sta­tions along high­ways and inter­city roads. City of Dobrich will be another municipality promoting electromobility[139]. There is a goal of building 20 charging stations in Dobrich. Even though the initiative in Dobrich came from FullCharger, the city government have also showed their fully supportive role.

The example of the Czech Republic

27. The environmental initiative “FutureMotion” (20,000,000 € budget until 2012), which initiated in Prague in 2009 by CEZ, the Czech energy production and service company, among other things focuses research on electric cars, and the development of smart grids[140]. The task of CEZ is to set up the charging infrastructure and provide the necessary energy to the customers. The motor company Peugeot has joined in providing 100 cars for testing and promotion of electric vehicles.

28. First charging stations were installed on 2010. CEZ plans to install 200 public stations by 2013. The stations will be not only in Prague but also in Central Moravia, South Moravia, West and East Bohemia.

29. Besides CEZ, there has been a significant promotion of electric cars also by other major regional power companies like E-ON and Prazska Energetika[141].

The example of Austria: support to natural gas vehicles and filling stations

30. Austria has supported the market introduction of natural gas vehicles and through the program “klima:aktiv”, in the frame of the Austrian climate strategy. One of the targets of this program is to reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector. The purchase of the natural gas vehicles is supported by up to 30% of the investment costs. The program also includes a financial support for building CNG filling stations (10,000 euro per pump). The design, construction, installation and operation of a natural gas vehicles filling station is described in the regulation ÖVGW G97, Feb 2008 (Revised 2010), published by the Austrian Association for Gas and Water. The natural gas quality as well as the quality of biomethane is regulated in the quality standards ÖVGW G31 and G33.

National Innovation Programmes

The case of Germany

31. As part of the National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NIP), Germany’s federal government and industrial sector are investing more than 40 million euros to expand the country’s network of hydrogen filling stations from currently 15 to 50. The total funding for the National Innovation Programme will be 700 M€ for ten years.

32. The infrastructure expansion plan focuses on the country’s metropolitan regions and the creation of corridors connecting these metropolitan regions. The network of hydrogen filling stations accompanies the commercialization of fuel cell vehicles that the automobile industry has announced for 2014/15.

33. The project “Clean Energy Partnership- CEP” continues the activities carried out under the EU project “Hyfleet-Cute”. CEP is one of the largest hydrogen demonstration projects in the world, is the main lighthouse project, and comprises deployments of passenger vehicles, buses, infrastructure, and sustainable production and delivery in several cities throughout Germany. The project currently involves 15 partners including international automotive companies, energy companies, and public transportation providers, and is focused on validating the technologies under real-world conditions. Vehicles from seven different manufacturers (BMW, Daimler, Ford, GM/Opel, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and soon Hyundai) are being used in everyday operation by real customers and fuelled at stations that are integrated with the existing refuelling stations and open to the public. The project also incorporates hydrogen buses serving actual customers within public transit networks.

The case of the United Kingdom

34. In January 2012, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills launched the project UKH2 Mobility in partnership with the industry. The Government is investing £ 400 million to support the development, demonstration and deployment of hydrogen vehicles. The project will evaluate the potential for hydrogen as a fuel for Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles in the UK before developing an action plan for an anticipated roll-out to consumers in 2014/15.

Set-up of alternative fuels’ networks

The case of London

35. In March 2010, the Mayor of London announced the creation of a “Hydrogen network” by 2012, in order to help accelerate the wider use of this zero-polluting, zero-carbon energy in the capital. The London Hydrogen Partnership (LHP) is working with London boroughs and private landowners on plans to deliver at least six refuelling sites to run hydrogen-powered vehicles in the capital over the next two years. One is already being built in east London for the refuelling of hydrogen-fuelled buses that will begin running on the RV1 route later this year.

Appendix 10: Results of illustrative economic modelling

Business-as-usual developments

Overall description

1. The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible future developments in a scenario at unchanged policies, the so-called baseline scenario or ‘Reference scenario’. This ‘Reference scenario’ was used in the following Impact Assessments (IAs):

(1) the IA accompanying the White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system[142];

(2) the IA accompanying A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050[143]; and

(3) the IA accompanying the Energy Roadmap 2050[144].

2. Accordingly, the ‘Reference scenario’ has been extensively described in:

(1) the IA accompanying the White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, Appendix 3 (pages 130-152). The list of policy measures included in the ‘Reference scenario’ is provided in Appendix 4: Inventory of policy measures relevant for the transport sector included in the 2050 Reference scenario (pages 153-155).

(2) the IA accompanying A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050.

(3) the IA accompanying the Energy Roadmap 2050, Part A of Annex 1, which describes assumptions, results and sensitivities with respect to the Reference scenario (pages 49-97)[145].

3. The ‘Reference scenario’ is a projection of developments in the absence of new policies beyond those adopted by March 2010. In order to take into account the most recent developments, such as higher energy prices and additional policies on infrastructure and energy taxation adopted by November 2011, an additional scenario (Scenario 1) has been modelled to serve as a business-as-usual scenario for the present IA. Scenario 1 was used in the IA accompanying the proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and the proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new light commercial vehicles[146].

4. The starting point for developing Scenario 1 is the ‘Reference scenario’. Similarly to the ‘Reference scenario’, Scenario 1 builds on a modelling framework including the PRIMES energy model and its transport model (PRIMES-TREMOVE)[147], the PROMETHEUS and GEM-E3 models[148].

5. The differences between Scenario 1 and the ‘Reference scenario’ have been presented in the IA accompanying the proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and the proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new light commercial vehicles (pages 39-50 of the Annex).

Main assumptions

6. In light of the references listed above, we will focus on the main assumptions and the most relevant information with respect to the subject of this IA. For the purposes of this IA, Scenario 1 is considered as an illustration of developments under Policy Option 1.

7. The population and macro-economic assumptions used in Scenario 1 are common with those used in the ‘Reference scenario’, and are shown on Table 8.

Table 8: Population and macroeconomic assumptions

Annual growth rates (%) || 2010-2020 || 2020-2030 || 2030-2040 || 2040-2050

Population || 0.29 || 0.12 || 0.00 || -0.09

GDP || 2.21 || 1.74 || 1.50 || 1.45

8. The population projections draw on the EUROPOP2008 convergence scenario[149] from Eurostat, which is also the basis for the 2009 Ageing Report[150]. The key drivers for demographic change are higher life expectancy, low fertility and inward migration.

9. The recent economic crisis is assumed to have long-lasting effects, leading to a permanent loss in GDP. The macro-economic projections show that the recovery from the crisis is not expected to be sufficiently vigorous to compensate for the current GDP losses. In this scenario, growth prospects for 2012 are subdued. However, the economic recovery enables higher productivity gains, leading to somewhat faster growth from 2013 to 2015. After 2015, GDP growth rates mirror those of the 2009 Ageing Report. Hence the pattern of the ‘Reference scenario’ is consistent with the intermediate scenario 2 “sluggish recovery” presented in the Europe 2020 strategy[151]. The medium and long term growth projections follow the “baseline” scenario of the 2009 Ageing Report.

10. The assumptions on energy import prices for the EU-27 in Scenario 1 are common with those used in the ‘Reference scenario’, and are shown on Table 9.

Table 9: Energy import prices

$’10 per boe (*) || 2010 || 2020 || 2030 || 2040 || 2050

Oil || 85.2 || 89.0 || 106.6 || 116.9 || 127.6

Gas (NGV) || 53.8 || 62.5 || 77.1 || 87.4 || 99.0

Coal || 22.8 || 28.9 || 32.8 || 32.8 || 33.7

Note: (*) $’10 = U.S Dollar in 2010 prices; boe = barrel oil equivalent

11. These price assumptions are the result of world energy modelling using the PROMETHEUS stochastic world energy model[152], which derives price trajectories for oil, gas and coal under a conventional wisdom view of the development of the world energy system. This stochastic model is particularly well suited given the great uncertainty regarding future world economic developments and the extent of recoverable resources of fossil fuels. The price development to 2050 is expected to take place in a context of economic recovery and resuming GDP growth without decisive climate action in any world region.

12. The price of the CO2 emissions allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, derived with the PRIMES energy system model, reaches 15 €’10/tCO2 by 2020, and is projected to be around 50 €’10/tCO2 by 2050 in Scenario 1, in line with the ‘Reference scenario’.

13. Scenario 1 includes all policy measures included in the ‘Reference scenario’ and adopted by March 2010. The list of these policy measures is provided in the IA accompanying the White Paper on Transport[153], while the additional policy measures, included in Scenario 1 relative to the ‘Reference scenario’ are provided in Table 10. These are measures adopted by November 2011.

Table 10: Additional policy assumptions relative to the ‘Reference scenario’

Area || Measure || How it is reflected in the model

Efficiency standards || Update of the CO2 standards for vans according to the adopted regulation[154] || Implementation of CO2 standards for vans (175 g of CO2 per kilometre by 2017, phasing in the reduction from 2014, and to reach 147g CO2/km by 2020).

Pricing and taxation

Taxation || Energy Taxation Directive (revision 2011) || Changes to minimum tax rates to reflect the switch from volume-based to energy content-based taxation and the inclusion of a CO2 tax component. Where Member States tax above the minimum level, the current rates are assumed to be kept unchanged. For motor fuels, the relationships between minimum rates are assumed to be mirrored at national level even if the existing rates are higher than the minimum rates. Tax rates are kept constant in real terms.

Internalisation of local externalities || Eurovignette Directive (Directive 2011/76/EU) || Reflected through the introduction of infrastructure charges in Poland (starting with 2011) and the announced introduction of distance based infrastructure charges in Denmark and Belgium (from 2014).

Infrastructure || TEN-T guidelines (revision 2011) and Connecting Europe Facility. || Reflected through the increase in the capacity and performance of the network resulting from the elimination of bottlenecks and addition of missing links, and increase in the train length (to 1.5 km) and maximum axle load (to 22.5 tonnes), reflected through decreases in operation costs and time costs and higher load factors for freight.

Internal market || Recast of the first railway package (2010) || Reflected through a reduction of average operating costs for railway undertakings.

Other assumptions

Energy import prices || || Short-term increase to reflect the evolution of prices up to 2010 as in the Energy Roadmap 2050.

Technology assumptions || Developments in national support measures and the intensification of previous action programmes and incentives, such as funding research and technology demonstration (RTD) projects to promote alternative fuels. || Slightly higher penetration of EVs. One private connector per electric vehicle and one public AC connector per 10 vehicles is assumed by 2020. Around 120 existing hydrogen refuelling stations mainly located in Denmark, Germany, the Benelux states and the United Kingdom. Existing and planned LNG/ CNG stations.

Main results

14. Total transport activity is expected to continue growing in line with economic activity in the long-run, even though a decrease is visible for 2008-2009 as a result of the recent economic crisis. Total passenger transport would increase by 21% between 2005 and 2020, and an additional 25% by 2050. Freight transport is projected to grow by 22% by 2020 and by about 49% between 2020 and 2050. The annual growth in transport activity by mode is provided in Table 11.

Table 11: Annual growth in transport activity in Scenario 1

EU27 - Annual growth rates (in %) || 2005-2020 || 2020-2030 || 2030-2040 || 2040-2050

Transport activity

Passenger transport activity in Gpkm || 1.3% || 1.0% || 0.7% || 0.5%

Public road transport || 0.8% || 0.5% || 0.4% || 0.3%

Passenger cars & LCVs || 1.1% || 0.7% || 0.6% || 0.4%

Powered two wheelers || 1.1% || 1.1% || 0.6% || 0.4%

Rail || 1.6% || 1.9% || 1.1% || 0.7%

Aviation || 3.0% || 2.6% || 1.5% || 1.3%

Inland navigation || 0.9% || 0.8% || 0.5%