Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on the Revision of Directive 2004/52/EC and Commission Decision 2009/750/EC ("EETS Legal Framework")

A. Need for action

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?

National electronic toll collection markets are dominated by local monopolies and providers of EU-wide toll collection services ('EETS providers') encounter barriers to expand into new markets. As a result, road users need many different on-board units (OBU), contracts and invoicing arrangements to pay tolls in different parts of the EU, resulting in a lot of costs and burden. Another problem is the relative impunity of vehicles registered in one Member State which do not pay tolls in another Member State. Indeed, there is today no efficient solution at the EU level for exchanging information on toll offenders. This results in toll revenue leakage and frustration among compliant drivers, but also inhibits technological evolution from traditional toll plazas to modern free-flow tolling solutions.

What should be achieved?

General objective: Contribute to the correct functioning of the Internal Market by ensuring full access to interoperability in tolling services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs. Specific objective 1: Remove market entry barriers and foster the development of a competitive market for electronic toll collection services Specific objective 2: Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles Specific objective 3: Remove the excessive obligations on EETS providers

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?

The sub-optimal way in which the electronic toll collection market is organised in Member State A negatively affects road users registered in Member State B, and vice versa. Therefore, no Member State individually has the incentive to change things, unless the interest of EU citizens and businesses is taken into account. This can only be achieved if action is undertaken at the EU level. As regards the cross-border enforcement of tolls, a purely intergovernmental approach has proven not to work. An efficient system of exchange of information on toll offenders can only be put in place by the EU for all Member States.

B. Solutions

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why?

Three alternative solutions have been considered: 1) Self-regulation to achieve specific objective 1 + legislative measures to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. In this policy option the Commission agrees with the industry on a number of clear operational objectives derived from the first specific objective, but refrains from imposing the way to achieve these objectives. The self-regulation is completed with hard regulation to achieve specific objectives 2 and 3. 2) Legislative approach, where all identified problems and problem drivers are addressed with EU legislation (changes to Directive 2004/52/EC and to Decision 2009/750/EC). 3) A single EU ETC standard to facilitate technical and procedural interoperability + legislative measures to promote competition on the market and to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. In this policy option the cost of providing interoperable services is reduced thanks to deep harmonisation of tolling systems and procedures. The other objectives are attained through changes to the legislation. Policy option 2 is the preferred option. It is the second most effective in reaching the objectives, but ranks highest in terms of cost-benefit analysis.

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?

PO1 is supported by the EETS Facilitation Platform (EFP) – the industry's co-operation platform involving main e-tolling actors in 12 countries. Most EFP members also support (large parts of) PO2. The legislative measures included in PO2 largely build on the industry's and national administrations' findings on the deficiencies of the current legislation. Nearly all the measures received strong support from stakeholders (and in particular Member States), although opposition was voiced regarding certain elements. Finally, PO3 has the support of non-professional road users, and has been mentioned as the path to follow by certain politicians. It is however largely rejected by representatives of the tolling industry.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?

PO2 will bring savings to road users amounting to €370 million (net present value - NPV, 2016-2025). Most of these savings will benefit the trucking industry, which is predominantly composed of SMEs. Mangers of road networks will benefit from savings from not procuring redundant OBUs (€48 million NPV) and additional toll revenues resulting from better rules on cross-border enforcement (€150 million per year). EETS providers will experience a reduction in regulatory burden linked to entering national markets (€ 10 million NPV, for an expected group of 12 EETS providers). Furthermore, they will see their market expand with additional revenues of €700 million per year.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?

Managers of road networks will experience additional costs of adapting their tolling systems to new requirements amounting to €174 million (NPV). Overall, the net cumulated benefit of PO2 (benefits-costs) is €254 million (NPV).

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?

The only type of impact on SMEs is benefits, hence no exemptions are needed. The main affected SME group is road haulage companies. The net positive cumulative economic impact for them amounts to €300 million (NPV). Overall, the initiative will increase the level of competitiveness in the electronic toll collection market by establishing fair market rules. The initiative will contribute to increasing the level of competitiveness of road hauliers (as it will reduce for them the amount of regulatory burden). It will greatly increase the level of competitiveness of EETS providers.

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

As many road managers are in fact national administrations or agencies, the additional costs for road managers will have an impact on national budgets. This impact will however be relatively low (maximum a couple of million euros per national administration). The mandatory use of the 'reseller model', where the EETS provider invoices users in his own name, rather than in the name of the road manager, could lead to some difficulties with implementation in Member States which consider tolls as taxes.

Will there be other significant impacts?

Other impacts will not be significant compared to the ones already described above.

Proportionality?

The measures in policy option 2 have been defined on the basis of lengthy consultation and dialogue with all the actors of the ETC market, and thus reflect a consensus between industry players. This should guarantee its proportionality.

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?