EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.5.2018 SWD(2018) 185 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy duty vehicles {COM(2018) 284 final}

{SEC(2018) 233 final}

{SWD(2018) 186 final}



Contents Glossary - acronyms and definitions 1Introduction 2Problem definition 3Why should the EU act? 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 5What are the various options to achieve the objectives? 6WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 7COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 8PREFERRED OPTION 9HOW WOULD IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?



Glossary - acronyms and definitions ACEA Federation of European Car Manufacturers CNG Compressed Natural Gas CO2 Carbon dioxide

EEA European Environment Agency ESR Effort Sharing Regulation ETS EU Emission Trading System EURO VI Euro VI emission standard for HDV as regards air pollutants, which are set out in Regulation (EC) 595/2009 GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse gas(es) GVW Gross Vehicle Weight –weight of the fully loaded vehicle and/or trailer, including all cargo, fluids, passengers and optional equipment HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicles: freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes (lorries) or passenger transport vehicles of more than 8 seats (buses and coaches) IEA International Energy Agency Mission Profile A trip with certain characteristics in terms of length, slope and speed used for the purpose of VECTO simulations LCV Light Commercial Vehicle(s): van(s) LDV Light-Duty Vehicle(s): passenger cars and vans LEV Low-Emission Vehicles: vehicles with tailpipe emissions significantly below the fleet-wide average emissions LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NOx Nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer (HDV manufacturer) Payload Weight that a vehicle can carry Trailer A road vehicle for transporting goods designed to be hauled by a road transport vehicle

VECTO Vehicle Energy Consumption calculation Tool ZEV Zero-emission vehicles: vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions

1Introduction 1.1Policy context Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) has committed to avoiding dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C. Decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a key prerequisite for fulfilling that commitment. The EU 2030 framework for climate and energy includes a target of at least 40% reduction of domestic EU GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels. The emission reductions in the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and in the sectors covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) amount to at least 43% and 30% by 2030 compared to 2005, respectively. Road transport, a sector covered by the ESR, is of key importance for reducing GHG emissions and decarbonising the EU economy. In the past 25 years however, as demand for mobility grew, transport emissions have steadily increased to reach 22% of EU GHG emissions in 2015. While Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) are currently responsible for about a quarter of CO2 emissions from road transport in the EU and for some 6% of total EU emissions, their CO2 emissions are not yet regulated in the EU. The Commission has taken a number of preparatory initiatives in this direction over the past years, as set out in Section 1.4. This initiative is part of the 2018 third Mobility Package and builds on the 2016 Low Emission Mobility Strategy, the previous two Mobility Packages, the Industrial Policy Strategy (see Annex 6) and the Commission proposal for CO2 emission standards post-2020 for cars and vans. 1.2Description of the Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) sector HDVs are defined as freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes (lorries) or passenger transport vehicles of more than 8 seats (buses and coaches). Road freight transport is essential for the development of trade and commerce on the European continent. Lorries carry 71.3% of freight transported over land, delivering also essential public services such as garbage collection, fire and construction. The road freight and passenger transport sector largely consists of SMEs, with over 600,000 enterprises across the EU employing almost 3 million people. Another 3.5 million people are employed in lorry manufacturing, repair, sales, leasing and insurance . The production of HDVs in the EU is concentrated in a few countries, in particular Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Sweden and Spain ( Figure 1 ). The EU is a major exporter of lorries, which generates a trade balance surplus of €4.9 billion in 2016. Six major manufacturers dominate the EU lorry market: Daimler, DAF, M.A.N., Scania, Renault, Volvo and Iveco , as shown in Figure 2 . The Chinese and Asia-Pacific markets are less consolidated and dominated mainly by domestic manufacturers (see Annex 5.1). Source: ACEA Pocket Guide 2017/2018 Source: ICCT (2015) 1.3Specificities of the HDV sector compared to light-duty vehicles (cars and vans) CO2 emissions from new light-duty vehicles (LDVs) have been regulated in the EU for a number of years. While several elements of the overall approach used for regulating cars and vans will be considered, the regulatory experience cannot be simply carried over to HDVs. This is because the HDV market is significantly different, in particular due to the wider range of types and models of vehicles, the lack of certified data as well as the size and the market structure, with purchasers of HDVs mostly consisting of SMEs. Also, HDV purchase prices are on average around 110,000 EUR per lorry, and thus far higher than for LDVs. The mileages driven by HDVs are on average around 1,200,000 km, and exceed those of LDVs by about a factor of 6. These key differences, which are summarised in Annex 5.2, need to be taken into account when preparing policies regulating CO2 emissions from HDVs. 1.4VECTO, certification and monitoring/reporting of HDV CO2 emissions

In 2014, the first key Commission initiative to tackle HDV CO2 emissions in the EU was the adoption of a strategy for reducing HDVs fuel consumption and CO2 emissions . This strategy laid down a step-wise approach for regulating CO2 emissions in this sector, which has been rolled out as follows: I.Firstly, the pre-requisite was to develop a tool for determining CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of HDVs in a harmonized way across the EU. For that purpose, the Commission has engaged since 2009 with main stakeholders in the development of a simulation tool, the so-called the Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool (VECTO). II.Secondly, the Commission adopted the Certification Regulation. This Regulation requires HDV manufacturers, as of 1 January 2019, to determine the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new vehicles they place on the EU market. The CO2 emissions are calculated by using VECTO. Information on the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new HDVs will be declared for the registration of vehicles under the EU type-approval legislative framework. III.Thirdly, the Commission adopted in May 2017, as part of the first mobility package, a proposal for a Regulation on the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emission and fuel consumption data (“Monitoring and Reporting Regulation”). The European Parliament and the Council reached an agreement in March 2018 on this proposal. Monitoring and Reporting Regulation requires that HDV manufacturers monitor and report these data to the Commission to be made publicly available. As a result of these important steps, information on emissions data and fuel consumption will be improved making the comparison of the performance of vehicles possible. These steps were also pre-conditions for regulating CO2 emissions from this sector. As regards the scope of the legislation, to date the Certification Regulation covers the four main groups of lorries, accounting for about 65% to 70% of total HDV CO2 emissions. Annually, some 250,000 new lorries falling into these four groups are registered. Buses and coaches, which are not yet covered by the Certification Regulation, represent about 10% of the total HDV CO2 emissions. The extension of the Certification Regulation to other groups of HDVs requires the further development of the VECTO simulation tool. At this stage, VECTO can simulate only lorries above 7.5 tonnes. Further development work is ongoing for VECTO to cover additional new technologies as of 2020 and to simulate smaller lorries, as well as buses and coaches as of 2020, and trailers as of 2021. Additional information can be found in Annex 8. 1.5Legal context No EU legislation regulates directly the level of CO2 emissions of HDVs. Legislation indirectly affecting CO2 emissions from HDVs is listed in Annex 6. 1.6Evaluation of the implementation No evaluation could be carried out in view of the absence of EU legislation setting CO2 standards for HDVs. Nevertheless the relevant experiences from the first years of implementing the legislation setting CO2 emission performance standards for light-duty vehicles have been taken into account for this Impact Assessment. This is in particular the case for the main governance related issue identified during that evaluation with the recommendation to systematically monitoring the evolution of the gap between the type-approval emissions and those in the real world as can be seen from Section 5.5.



2Problem definition 2.1What are the problems? An overview of the drivers, problems and objectives is presented in Figure 3 . Figure 3: Drivers, problems and objectives 2.1.1Problem 1: HDV sector is a significant and growing source of GHG emissions

In 2015, GHG emissions from HDVs were around 19% higher than in 1990, representing around 6% of total EU emissions, and almost a fifth of all transport emissions. Without further action and HDV activity steadily increasing, HDV CO2 emissions are set to increase by up to 6% between 2015 and 2030. At the same time, the EU has set ambitious targets for reducing GHG emissions by 2030, including for the non-ETS sectors, to which the transport sector must contribute. Cars and vans are already delivering their share and legislation has been proposed so that they continue doing so after 2020. However, the accompanying Impact Assessment shows that further measures are needed in the road transport sector, including for HDVs, in order to cost-effectively contribute to meet the 2030 national targets set under the Effort Sharing Regulation. To this end, a similar bottom-up approach will be used in this Impact Assessment as was the case for the Impact Assessment underlying the Cars and Vans CO2 proposal, i.e. assessing the impacts of different options covering a broad range of target levels for new lorries (see Section 5.1.4). As a result, for each target level, the GHG emission reductions that would be achieved over the next decade can be determined and hence the contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions needed to meet the 2030 targets, as well as the related economic costs and benefits (see Section 6.2.4.2, Section 6.2.4.4.4 and in Annex 10.9). As regards air pollutants, transport remains the largest contributor to NOx emissions in the EU. High levels of air pollution are of particular concern in urban areas. Even though HDVs are subject to the EURO standards for pollutant emissions and drive for most of their mileage in intra-urban areas, their emissions contribute both to background and traffic NO2 concentrations. Contribution of HDVs to total NOx emissions can be nearly 40 % , with a roughly equal split between buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles. 2.1.2Problem 2: Transport operators and their customers miss out on possible fuel savings due to the limited uptake of fuel-efficient technologies A broad range of technologies for reducing the fuel consumptions and CO2 emissions from HDVs is readily available on the market, while others are at various stages of development. Furthermore, HDVs may be equipped with alternative powertrains such as LNG fuelled engines. Table 1 groups these technologies into five types depending on their nature, degree of implementation and constraints affecting their widespread deployment. Technologies listed in the first and second category are readily available while the timing of roll-out, commercial availability and up-take of the others is more uncertain. For technologies of the first type, no technical or legal constraints should prevent their widespread deployment. Table 1 shows the costs and fuel savings for a number of these readily available technologies when applied for a long-haul tractor vehicle, as well as their current market penetration in the EU. Surprisingly, as illustrated in Figure 4 , many of these technologies are not yet widely spread even though their costs are low – generally well below 1% of the purchase price of a new vehicle - and they would bring considerable net savings over time. However, the net savings of individual technologies will be perceived as rather modest if compared to the total fuel bill, as most of them do not save more than 2% of the fuel bill or about 0.5% of the total operating costs. If transport operators want to reap the full benefits, they will have to select a number of technologies at the same time, which makes the purchasing decision more complex. Similar conclusions have been drawn up by the US authorities in their Regulatory Impact Analysis underpinning the phase 2 of the US legislation setting CO2 emission standards for HDVs: "Economic theory suggests that interactions between vehicle buyers and sellers in a normally-functioning competitive market would lead HDV manufacturers to incorporate all technologies that contribute to lower net costs into the vehicles they offer, and buyers to purchase them willingly. Nevertheless, many readily available technologies that appear to offer cost-effective increases in HDV fuel efficiency (when evaluated over their expected lifetimes using conventional discount rates) have not been widely adopted, despite their potential to repay buyers’ initial investments rapidly." The lack of uptake is to the detriment of freight transport operators, who on average experience fuel costs about a quarter of their total operational costs . A higher uptake of efficient technologies should in particular benefit the more than half a million transport companies in the EU that are SMEs or micro-enterprises and work off tight margins. The uptake of the technologies of the second type shown in Table 1 has been constrained by legal restrictions, which will be removed in the near future. Based on the analysis of the technologies and fuel savings potentials, it appears that the full deployment into the fleet of the first two types of technologies listed in Table 1 would bring about 15 to 20% CO2 emission savings in 2025 compared to 2019. As regards the technologies in the other three groups, their broad uptake is currently constrained either by the fact that there are at present only prototypes available and mass production has not yet started (type 3) or by external technical factors including the availability of the necessary infrastructure, e.g. refuelling, recharging, catenary lines. However, each of them has the economic potential to be taken up over the next decade.



Technology types Description Market penetration Constraints 1. Readily available technologies Technologies readily available that could be implemented across the whole fleet. Examples: low rolling resistance tyres, better lubricants, certain aerodynamic improvements or efficiency improvements of the engine and the pollutant after-treatment systems. Current market penetration is limited despite high net savings None 2. Available technologies, which are not implemented due to legal restrictions Technologies currently available from a technical perspective, but not implemented due to legal restrictions Examples: elongated cabins, rear-view cameras instead of mirrors. Currently no market penetration. Implementation expected as of early 2020s. Constraints due to type approval and safety legislation and the Weights and Dimensions Directive. These are to be removed through Commission proposals as part of the 3rd Mobility Package amending the General Safety Regulation and the Weights and Dimensions Directive. Amendments will also be necessary to implementing type approval legislation until end 2018. 3. Prospective technologies Known technologies, existing at least as prototypes or currently installed on some selected vehicles. However, due to their complexity and a certain lack of maturity, a deployment on a wide range of the vehicle fleet by 2025 may be very difficult to achieve. Examples: waste heat recovery or hybridisation. Currently almost no market penetration Based on existing development cycles of manufacturers, the uptake rates of these technologies in the year 2025 will still be limited (max. 5% for waste heat recovery and full hybridisation) No principal technical constraints. Constraints from integrating the necessary development work into existing product cycles. 4. LNG vehicles Current "conventional" LNG technology offers a CO2 emission reduction of up to 5% as compared to similar diesel vehicles. A new LNG technology is under development and could achieve up to 20% fuel efficiency improvement when operated in the high-pressure direct injection (HPDI) engine cycle. Currently very limited market penetration (<1% of the fleet). Contribution of conventional LNG vehicles in 2025 is expected to be limited. For the following years, the contribution of LNG vehicles can be larger depending on the CO2 emission target levels. The most efficient HDPI LNG vehicles are expected to be available on a wide scale only after 2025. The use of LNG vehicles is constrained by the required LNG infrastructure, which is expected to improve over time. 5. Zero- and low-emission vehicles Battery and fuel cell electric lorries are in pilot or early development stages. Pilot project for lorries using catenary lines; no commercial concept of large plug-in hybrid lorries. Currently no market penetration (see Section5.3. Future market penetration depends on the CO2 emission target levels and possible incentives. The use of zero and low emission vehicles is constrained by the required appropriate infrastructure.

Technologies Fuel savings Technology costs Net savings Payback period in years Implementation rate (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Improved lubricants €1,910 €23 0.02% €1,887 1.1% 0.1 2% Improved SCR and optimised SCR heating methods €3,979 €105 0.10% €3,874 2.2% 0.1 10% Aerodynamic mud flaps €2,880 €135 0.12% €2,745 1.6% 0.2 0% Tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) on truck €459 €149 0.14% €310 0.2% 1.3 20% Closable front grille €2,531 €150 0.14% €2,381 1.3% 0.2 25% Cooling fan €825 €180 0.16% €645 0.4% 0.9 31% Friction reduction + improved water and oil pumps €3,148 €200 0.18% €2,948 1.7% 0.3 5% Air compressor €2,728 €250 0.23% €2,478 1.4% 0.4 2% Reduced losses (lubricants, design) €2,978 €250 0.23% €2,728 1.5% 0.3 50% Predictive cruise control (PCC) €2,282 €600 0.55% €1,682 1.0% 1.1 55% Downspeeding with optimised map €1,170 €750 0.68% €420 0.2% 2.6 15% Improved turbocharging and EGR €7,958 €1,050 0.95% €6,908 3.9% 0.5 45% Side and underbody panels at truck chassis €2,531 €1,539 1.40% €992 0.6% 2.5 5% Low rolling resistance tires on truck/tractor €12,541 €2,100 1.91% €10,441 5.9% 0.7 43% (1)Fuel savings from a first use (5 years) perspective (EUR/lorry) (2)Average technology costs (EUR/lorry) – based on a study carried by Commission contractors (3)Technology costs (percentage of vehicle purchase price, i.e. €110,000) (4)Net savings (EUR/lorry) from a first use (5 years) perspective: difference between (1) fuel savings and (3) technology costs (5)Net savings from a first use (5 years) perspective (percentage of total fuel costs) (6)Payback period of technology costs in years (7)Technology implementation rate across the EU fleet in 2016 Figure 4: Penetration rate of some readily available technologies and the net savings they deliver (first use (5 years) perspective) 2.1.3Problem 3: EU HDV manufacturers and component suppliers are at risk of losing their technological and innovation leadership position The focus of this problem is on the risk of lagging behind in terms of innovation in new technologies. The EU HDV manufacturers and component suppliers currently have a global technological leadership position, as EU lorries are more fuel efficient than lorries in other economies. However, EU manufacturers face increasing global competitive pressures. Significant markets such as the US, Canada, Japan and China have in recent years implemented fuel consumption and/or emission standards in order to stimulate innovation and rapidly improve vehicle efficiency. Annex 5.3 provides an overview of the legislation and Annex 7.2 gives data on average fuel consumption. On the one hand, the EU could benefit, via spill-over effects, from this evolution, as it will create technological progress and economies of scale in the rest of the world. On the other hand, this would potentially increase the chance that, in absence of policy incentives, manufacturers would market the least efficient HDVs in Europe, while keeping more efficient technologies in markets with regulations to curb emissions. In view of this, the EU HDV manufacturers and component suppliers would need to keep up with the technological improvements in the other markets in which they are active, in order to preserve their leading innovative position. This pressure is already clearly visible in the field of electric buses and smaller trucks where Chinese manufacturers have taken a significant technological leadership. In China, more than 300,000 electric buses are already in circulation, compared to about 1,000 vehicles in the EU. This development in China is mainly forced by public tendering also trying to tackle severe problems of air pollution in cities. Since European manufacturers are hardly present in the Chinese bus market, they could easily lose competitive edge for electric HDVs in general if those are introduced too slowly or in insufficient numbers in Europe. Thus, the future competitive position of EU manufacturers and suppliers operating globally would be strengthened with respect to competitors of other regions if in their home market they provide, by default, vehicles with high standards. From a longer-term perspective, the absence of regulatory pressure for innovating and improving HDV fuel efficiency in the EU could potentially risk putting manufacturers only present in the European markets at a disadvantage with respect to better prepared competitors from other regions. Experience with the cars and vans CO2 legislation shows that CO2 emission standards are a strong driver for innovation. The lack of such regulatory approach in the EU with regards to CO2 emissions from HDVs is therefore a factor of risk for the EU industry to lose their leadership on innovation.

2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.2.1Driver 1: Road freight transport activity is increasing The road freight sector must accommodate the increasing demand for the movement of goods on the EU's road networks. As a result, road freight transport by HDVs has had the most steady growth and increasingly high relative share among the main transport modes. Despite the economic and financial crisis in 2007 - 2009, road freight activity was 34% higher in 2015 compared its 1995 levels. In the longer term, under current trends and adopted policies , road freight transport activity is set to increase between 2010 and 2050 by about 56% (1.1% p.a.) due to a strong correlation with economic growth (see Annex 7.3). 2.2.2Driver 2: Barriers hindering the uptake of more fuel-efficient technologies In a perfectly competitive market, with perfect information, HDV manufacturers would provide mostly vehicles equipped with advanced fuel-efficient technologies leading to net savings, while most buyers would be willing to purchase such vehicles. However, as shown in Section 2.1.2, a large number of readily available cost-effective technologies are not widely deployed in the market, even though they could bring high net savings from a first use perspective. As fuel costs are a major item in transport operators' expenses, one would expect fuel efficiency considerations to be among their key criteria in purchasing a new vehicle. Most transport operators work off a payback period of maximum three years, which is less than the average period of use by the first buyer and far below the average lifetime of the vehicle. This is a sign that riskaversion make some buyers of HDVs forgo opportunities that would pay off in a longer time than three years. In the preparation of the US CO2 standards for HDVs, the US EPA provided for an equivalent description of this situation, commonly known as "the energy efficiency gap" or "energy paradox". This is due to lack of information about technology performance and network externalities that contribute to slow adoption of some technologies. In its regulatory impact analysis, the US authorities underlined the following: "Explaining why the gap exists is a separate and difficult challenge from observing the existence of the gap, because of the difficulties involved in developing tests of the different possible explanations. There is very little empirical evidence on behaviors that might lead to the gap, even while there continues to be substantial evidence, via the cost and effectiveness analysis, of the gap’s existence." According to the literature, a number of causes may contribute to the slow adoption of some technologies, such as environmental externalities and market failures mainly related to the asymmetry of information between sellers and buyers. Based on the stakeholders’ consultations, the main barriers are discussed below. This is also consistent with the analysis carried out by the US authorities in preparation of the US legislation. A study for the German government of the year 2015 came to similar conclusions for the European market. Environmental externalities Even if the market was perfectly competitive and there was perfect information available to all agents, market forces would unlikely deliver the societal optimum in terms of CO2 emissions. Externalities are to result from costs and benefits that are not directly priced into the market. Both transport operators and manufacturers want to maximise profits. As societal costs and benefits do not enter their calculations, supply and demand are likely to meet at a level that is not the best for the environment and climate change, see Section 6.2.4.2.1 for a calculation of the avoided cost of CO2 that would results from higher use of technologies. This issue is further reinforced by imperfect information. Imperfect and asymmetric information in the new vehicle market Buyers of lorries have less accurate information than manufacturers about the potential performance of fuel-saving technologies. One of the main options for the buyer is to test drive the vehicle in advance or to use data from independent lorry tests. However, this would provide information only about a bundle of technologies and not on the impact of each of them. In addition, information in expert journals is limited and might not reflect the transport operators’ actual usage of the vehicle. Furthermore, transport operators often find it difficult differentiating fuel savings resulting from technology adoption. They also consider the operational measures, in particular improved driver behaviours, as more important than investments in new technologies for which the fuel efficiency gains are more difficult to evaluate. They might also doubt the effectiveness of fuel-saving technologies in providing benefits proportionate to their costs. The availability of VECTO data from 2019 will help addressing asymmetries but is unlikely to be sufficient to close them. While in principle it will be possible for the prospective buyer to ask the manufacturer for information on the basis of VECTO, there is no automatism that the buyer, mostly SMEs, can acquire such comparative information on the effects of specific technologies. Access to this technical information will remain complex for SMEs and it will be difficult for buyers to make full use of the detailed reporting data. This point is also confirmed by the experience in the US where the availability of a simulation tool GEM has improved information but has had limited effects on the uptake of readily available technologies. In addition, VECTO data will only cover technologies already available in the market. The effect of new, advanced technologies will continue only to be known by manufacturers. The price premium sellers can earn for more fuel-efficient vehicles in the second hand market is also unclear.

For these reasons of uncertainty, buyers may attach a risk premium to investing in new technologies and give a relatively larger weight to immediate costs than future savings. This will in turn affect their likelihood of adoption, and in turn the expectation of low uptake will make manufacturers less likely to bring the technologies to market. The possible scepticism from buyers towards technologies is consistent with evidence from the U.S. that “a general rule-of-thumb is to take manufacturer claims about fuel consumption reduction and cut these numbers in half”. The barrier on asymmetry of information also results in an 'adverse selection' problem. Buyers are not willing to pay the price that is necessary for the seller to cover the additional technology cost with some profit margin on top. Sellers offer only packages of additional technologies only as ‘premium’ options. As many buyers are under-resourced SMEs, they do not take these premium package options. This may somehow be reinforced by a widespread perception in the road freight sector that operational measures such as driver training are more beneficial compared to additional, at times expensive new technologies. Overall, the information asymmetries and the uncertainty on the side of buyers reduce demand for new technologies and reduce the readiness of technology suppliers to invest in further research and development. The reasons for inertia in the HDV market are explored in Box 1. Banks do not factor in fuel efficiency as part of their lending criteria. As a result, higher upfront cost options are less likely to secure finance. This exacerbates the payback gap, i.e. the difference between the time fuel cost savings amortise the capital investment and the willingness of buyers to wait for the benefit to materialise. That adds to the explanations of the observed average payback period of three years or less. Split incentives Fuel consumption in the transport industry is partly affected by a principalagent problem. There could be split incentives when the buyer of a technology is not directly responsible for the lorry's fuel costs. Two instances are: 1.Separate ownership of the lorry: the buyer of the vehicle is not its operator, for instance due to leasing arrangements. In the EU, the share of hired or leased heavy goods vehicles in total new registrations is estimated to be about 40%. 2.Fuel provisions in contracts: fuel provisions are part of fixed transport contracts such that the operator’s costs do not change with fuel consumption. An EU study found that openbook fuel provisions are used by roughly 20% of the companies surveyed. Cost pass through Due to the large number of transport operators, the market providing transport services is very competitive, and it is likely that a part of the fuels savings is passed through via a reduction of freight cost to the final customer of transport services. Because of that, transport operators will be uncertain to what extent purchasing a highly fuel efficient truck will translate into a higher income for them. Annex 10.8 shows that the expected magnitude of lower freight costs and increased activity is limited. A first driver of inertia, that prevents fuel savings technology from being adopted, is the structure of the HDV market. The current market for HDV is one where sellers offer packages of additional technologies generally as ‘premium’ options and not as part of standard vehicles. Apart from fuel saving technologies, these include also other technologies that improve e.g. the comfort, appearance of the vehicle. This marketing strategy allows sellers to charge more to "premium customers". As such, this marketing approach limits demand and, thus, is not likely to incentivise manufacturers to promote fuel efficiency technologies. The majority of particularly small transport operators may not be interested in buying these premium products as they have limited access to finance, and expectations of short-term pay back. This situation is likely to persist in the existing concentrated market structure. The market is very concentrated on the side of the HDV manufacturers, which might exert low competitive pressure. The European market is dominated by only a few companies, with market shares in the range of 7% to 30%. The relative small number of sellers might restrict product variety. In addition, the high level of price transparency in the market increases the probability of price alignment among competitors, even without explicit coordination between them. In contrast, the majority of freight operators are small businesses, with 85 % having fewer than 10 vehicles. A second driver is the presence of market uncertainties. Transport operators have difficulties in objectively assessing the fuel savings of the large variety of fuel efficient technologies. The net savings of these technologies will often be perceived as rather modest in the order of 0.5% of total operating costs. More substantial savings will only be made if a number of technologies is purchased at the same time. In addition, high time preferences make some buyers of lorries forgo opportunities that would pay off in a longer time than three years. Other considerations are the widespread perception of transport operators that operational measures such as driver training are sufficient, and that the first user might not be able to charge a premium when selling second-hand. 2.2.3Driver 3: Limited use of zero and low-emission vehicles in the HDV sector HDVs rely for about 98% on the use of diesel fuel. Currently, there are virtually no zero- or low-emission lorries on the European roads in the vehicle groups targeted by this Impact Assessment. However, almost all traditional manufacturers have announced plans for electrification. Some new manufacturers from outside the EU, such as BYD and Tesla, aim to produce exclusively electric HDVs and want to enter the European market. In some other HDV groups, such as buses or smaller lorries, ZEV/LEV development and uptake is more advanced and a broader range of ZEV/LEV powertrain types could be soon commercially viable. More information on this issue can be found in Annex 9.3. 2.3Overview of EU mobility policies There are a number of different pieces of EU legislation relevant for the decarbonisation of road transport and addressing to some extent the abovementioned problems. The main regulatory and non-regulatory instruments are summarized in Figure 5 and described in Annex 6, including their expected impacts on CO2 emissions. They concern supply, demand, economic and enabling instruments.

2.4How will the problem evolve and how mobility policies affect the problem drivers? As shown in Figure 6 , freight activity and GHG emissions from HDVs have been closely linked over time with very little decoupling taking place. As shown in Figure 7 , without further action, HDV CO2 emissions are set to increase by up to 9% between 2010 and 2030 . Figure 6: Trend of HDV activity versus GHG emissions Source: EEA and Eurostat Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE The objective of reducing CO2 emissions in the road freight transport sector can be achieved by a combination of influencing three variables, i.e. (i) reducing the level of activity, e.g. a modal shift from road to rail, improving logistics, (ii) improving the energy efficiency of road transport, and (iii) reducing the CO2 intensity of energy use in transport, e.g. by increasing the percentage of low emission fuels. Since the scope of each of these three routes is limited, all three of them will be needed to achieve the EU's CO2 reduction objectives and are therefore complementary. Their respective effects on CO2 emission reductions are essentially cumulative. It should also be noted that the introduction of incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles as assessed in the draft IA would be well in line with some increased long haul freight transport via rail, as such vehicles are particularly suitable for regional freight distribution services starting from rail transport hubs. While all existing policy measures shown in Figure 5 and detailed in Annex 6 address to a certain extent the drivers identified and complement each other, these are not sufficient for tackling the key barriers for the uptake of fuel-efficient technologies. Annex 7 provides more details on this issue. The energy efficiency of HDVs may improve in the period to 2030 in response to forecast higher oil prices, technology improvements, and through the implementation of related policies such as the revised Eurovignette and Clean Vehicles Directives. However, this will not be sufficient to ensure the HDV sector can contribute sufficiently towards reaching the 2030 climate change targets and the goals of the Paris Agreement. In the absence of significant improvements in vehicle energy efficiency and the ongoing prevalence of certain barriers, transport operators will continue to miss out on operational cost savings, which also impacts transport costs. It should also be noted that the existence of CO2 emission and fuel consumption standards in other major economies such as Japan, the US, Canada and China spurs the development of more energy-efficient technologies in their HDV sectors. Without any regulatory pressure, a risk exists that the EU HDV sector may miss out on technological innovation. Countries which have introduced fuel consumption and CO2 standards have observed improved levels of fuel efficiency. According to a recent study, the introduction of fuel standards in the US, brought about a 24% fuel efficiency gain from 2011 to 2017 through the deployment of fuelsaving technologies. It should be noted, however, that average fuel consumption of lorries started from a higher level in the US. Recently, it has also been observed in the US that, after the introduction of the first phase of the CO2 emission standards for HDVs, fuel-saving technologies such as aerodynamic kits and automated manual transmissions are being adopted at a rate much greater than expected, as larger fleets are becoming aware of the short payback periods. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the introduction of EU CO2 standards for LDV, which lead to a sharper reduction of emissions. In light of the above, there is merit in analysing adding CO2 emission standards for HDVs to the policy portfolio presented in Figure 5 and detailed in Annex 6. This would set out a supply side measure at EU level with the view of ensuring an effective decarbonisation of the HDVs transport sector. This is therefore the focus of the further analysis of this impact assessment. The analysis will concern the largest lorries belonging to the four main vehicle groups currently covered by the certification legislation. Other smaller lorries as well as buses and trailers could be addressed at a later stage, the development of the VECTO simulation tool and the certification of their emissions being a pre-requisite for any regulatory measures (for more information on the possible change of the scope of CO2 emission standards for HDV see Section 5.1.1). 2.5Who is affected and how Major stakeholder groups affected include the general population, freight transport operators and logistics companies, vehicle manufactures, and automotive component suppliers. The main impacts are: ·The EU population is increasingly and negatively affected by climate change. In addition, lower air pollution will improve the wellbeing of the EU population. ·Transport operators will benefit from the lower fuel costs and the lower total cost of vehicle ownership.

·Depending on the scale of expected benefits and costs and the level of passthrough, a change in freight costs for goods could take place, affecting producers and final consumers. ·Vehicle manufacturers will be affected by the obligation to reduce CO2 emissions, and will have to introduce technical CO2 reduction measures. In the short-term, this is likely to result in increased production costs. There would be different impacts on different manufacturers depending on the actual reduction level required and the current level of investment and focus by the manufacturer on reducing emissions. ·Component suppliers are expected to benefit from higher demand for advanced technologies. Given that EU manufacturers may need new technologies to comply with the standards, EU-based suppliers might improve their revenues. ·Sectors other than transport that emit GHGs will avoid demands to further reduce emissions to compensate for increased transport emissions. In so far as these sectors are exposed to competition, this will be important for their competitiveness. ·Energy security of the European Union will improve, as the import of oil will decrease with lower fuel consumption. 3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis Articles 191 to 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) confirm and further specify EU competencies in the area of climate change. In particular, the TFEU provides the legal basis for acting on HDV fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The EU has already acted in the area of vehicle CO2 emissions, adopting Regulations (EC) 443/2009 and (EU) 510/2011, which set limits for CO2 emissions from cars and vans. These Regulations are based upon the Environment chapter of the Treaty, namely on Article 192 TFEU. 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action Climate change is a transboundary problem and at the same time is a competence shared between the EU and Member States. Road freight transport also has a transboundary dimension in view of the specific service it renders – transportation of goods does not stop at the borders - and the fact that HDVs can be traded across the EU. Consequently, EU action is justified in view of both the cross-border impact of climate change and the need to safeguard a single market in road freight transport services and in HDVs. Without action at EU level, one would have to rely on Member State initiatives to reduce HDV emissions. However, many Member States apply a preferential tax treatment for the fuel used in the HDV transport sector and there are few signals that this would change in the future. The current fuel tax levels have not triggered the necessary increase in fuel efficiency. Furthermore, such a decision lies with Member States and it is unlikely that Member States will generally increase fuel tax levels to such a level that could trigger significant efficiency improvement as the entire fleet will be subject to the increase in fuel taxes affecting a large number of SMEs and individual transport operators. In addition, the EU taxation policy is subject to unanimity making it difficult to harmonize this policy field. For these reasons, the possible increase in fuel tax levels could only be complementary but could not substitute the setting of CO2 emission standards. Furthermore, in case action would be left to Member States, there could be a risk of a range of national schemes to reduce HDV CO2 emissions, e.g. depending on the targets set under the ESR. If this were to happen, it would result in differing ambition levels and design parameters, which would require a range of technology options, diminishing economies of scale and fragmenting the single market. Since manufacturers hold differing shares of the vehicle market in different Member States they would therefore be differentially impacted by various national legislations potentially causing competitive distortions. There might even be a risk that national legislation might be tailored to suit local industry. Coordination of climate action at EU level is therefore necessary. 3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action In view of the existing single market for new HDVs, it is most cost-effective to ensure harmonised action and set CO2 targets on new HDVs at EU level. It is unlikely that Member States acting individually would set targets in an equally consistent manner as shown by the widely differing tax treatment of new vehicles across the EU. Poor coordination between Member States would raise compliance costs and weaken the incentive to design fuel efficient HDVs because of the fragmentation of the European market. HDV manufacturers have recognised the risk of market fragmentation should Member States individually implement legislation to reduce HDV CO2 emissions. The automotive industry requires regulatory certainty to make the large capital investments necessary to maximise the fuel economy of new vehicles. The need for regulatory certainty was specifically highlighted by HDV manufacturers during the public consultation. Standards at EU level provide this certainty, which could not be guaranteed at Member State level.

4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General objectives The general policy objective is to contribute to the achievement of the EU's commitments under the Paris Agreement (based on Article 192 TFEU). 4.2Specific objectives The three specific objectives are the following: 1.Reduce CO2 emissions from the HDV sector in line with the requirements of EU climate policy and the Paris Agreement. With road transport causing one third of non-ETS emissions and emissions increasing in the last few years, reducing CO2 emissions from HDVs is of key importance. This objective was considered very important by all stakeholder groups during the open public consultation. 2.Facilitate a reduction in operating costs for transport operators, most of which are SMEs, and more broadly of transportation costs for consumers depending on pass-through of fuel savings. This objective is related to the consumer angle of the CO2 standards, aiming to create benefits for transport operators through the sales of more efficient vehicles. 3.Maintain the technological and innovative leadership position of EU HDV manufacturers and component suppliers. By providing a clear regulatory signal and predictability for industry to develop and invest in fuel-efficient technologies, this initiative aims to foster innovation in a fast changing global automotive landscape. In addition, the introduction of CO2 emission standards for HDVs is expected to lead to two main co-benefits: improvements in air quality and increased energy security. 5What are the various options to achieve the objectives? The options considered cover a number of elements, which are grouped into five categories: (i) CO2 emission targets; (ii) Distribution of target across vehicle groups and manufacturers; (iii) Incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles; (iv) Elements for cost-effective implementation and (v) Governance. Annex 9.1 shows how these categories are related to the problems defined in Section 2.1. 5.1EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets 5.1.1Scope In line with the approach taken in the Certification Regulation and the VECTO simulation tool, CO2 standards are to be set at the whole-vehicle level, similarly as for LDVs under the EU Regulations. In the USA, whole-vehicle CO2 standards are complemented by CO2 standards for engines in order to ensure that engine efficiency is improved. Engine CO2 emissions are currently type approved in the EU. As described in Annex 8, the Certification Regulation and VECTO distinguish several HDV groups. Amongst those, group 5 vehicles (tractors with 4x2 axles and a GVW of more than 16 t) by far have the highest contribution to the CO2 emissions, followed by vehicles in groups 4, 9 and 10. In view of the above, the following three options are considered with respect to the scope of the CO2 emission targets:

·Scope 1: Lorries falling in groups 4, 5, 9 and 10, currently covered by VECTO (whole-vehicle CO2 "standards only); ·Scope 2: Lorries falling in group 5 (whole-vehicle CO2 standards only); ·Scope 3: Two separate standards for whole-vehicle and engine-only CO2 emissions for the vehicles falling within the scope (Scope 1 or Scope 2). Stakeholders generally supported option 1, except for some environmental NGOs, who favoured option 3. In the future, the development of the VECTO simulation tool will provide the necessary data that will enable other HDV types such as small lorries, buses, coaches and trailers to be made subject to CO2 emission standards. As explained in Section 1.4, the planned timeline for simulating the mentioned vehicle types is 2020 – 2021. It should be noted, though, that the availability of CO2 emission data on new vehicle types should be reflected in the reporting and monitoring as well as in the certification procedures. That would require amendments to the Certification Regulation as well as the Reporting and Monitoring Regulation. Following such amendments, CO2 emission standards could be extended to cover vehicle types other than those within groups 4, 5, 9 and 10. 5.1.2Metric for expressing the CO2 emission targets When defining CO2 emission targets, it has to be considered which phases of a vehicle's life they should cover. Several approaches are possible: ·CO2 emissions at the vehicle’s tailpipe, i.e. Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) approach: This approach considers emissions from the combustion of fuels during the use of the vehicle. It allows taking into account the emission reduction achieved by using less carbon intensive fuels. For instance, using LNG could reduce tailpipe emissions by up to 15 to 20% compared to diesel technology. A TTW approach was supported by most of the stakeholders. ·CO2 emissions during fuel production and at the vehicle's tailpipe, i.e. Well-To-Wheel (WTW) approach: Next to the tailpipe emissions, the fuel used to propel a vehicle also gives rise to emissions during its production. These are the so-called Well-To-Tank (WTT) emissions. Different energy sources vary in the amount of WTT CO2 emissions generated during their production. This is particularly relevant for different types of low-carbon fuels, e.g. biofuels, biogas or power-to-gas. Under a WTW approach, the targets take into account the sum of the tailpipe (TTW) and upstream (WTT) emissions. Only a few stakeholders from the fuels and gas sector supported this option during the open public consultation. ·Full life-cycle CO2 emissions: Under a life-cycle based approach, in addition to the WTW emissions, the target would also cover CO2 emissions occurring during the manufacturing of the vehicles and their end-of-life phase. These so-called "embedded emissions" may be of greater relative importance for electric vehicles. A life-cycle based approach would add an enormous complexity and additional burden as it requires much more detailed reporting by lorry manufacturers. In view of the very low share of electric vehicles in the HDV sector, a metric including embedded emissions would have limited added value. Therefore, it will not be further considered in the present impact assessment. This approach was not suggested by any stakeholders. The options considered for the metric expressing the CO2 emission target are therefore: ·Metric 1: Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) approach ·Metric 2: Well-To-Wheel (WTW) approach 5.1.3Unit for expressing CO2 emission targets In terms of units to express the whole-vehicle CO2 targets (options Scope 1 and Scope 2 as set out in Section 5.1.1), three options will be considered, all of which are calculated by the VECTO simulation tool:

·Metric unit 1: g CO2/km ·Metric unit 2: g CO2/tkm ·Metric unit 3: g CO2/m3km The g CO2/km metric allows comparing the emission performance of vehicles on a unit distance basis but does not account for a lorry’s payload, which may differ significantly across different vehicle groups and mission profiles. The g CO2/tkm metric also factors in payloads reflecting the characteristics of individual HDVs in terms of their freight function. The g CO2/m3km takes into account the volume the vehicle could transport taking into consideration that the general cargo type of goods is often volume sensitive. During the public consultation, stakeholders representing manufacturers, component suppliers and the gas sector preferred expressing the targets in g CO2/tkm. By contrast, most civil society organisations preferred expressing the targets in g CO2/km. 5.1.4Target levels In order to ensure that the specific objectives are achieved, an adequate level of the overall CO2 emission target needs to be defined. However, the HDV target levels considered cannot be directly derived from the overall multi-sectoral target set under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) of reducing emissions in 2030 by 30% compared to 2005. Instead, a range of options as regards the level of the HDV CO2 emission targets has been determined, through a bottom-up approach, based on the cost-curves reflecting the CO2 emission potentials of technological improvements. For the purpose of the assessment, the contribution of the policy to road transport emissions under those CO2 target level options for new HDV has been calculated (see section 6.2.4.4.4). The first full year for which official CO2 emissions data will be available is 2019. Due to a lack of certified CO2 emissions data at this stage, the CO2 target level will have to be expressed in relative terms rather than as an absolute value. Thus, different options for the EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets are defined as a percentage efficiency improvement with respect to the levels of the reference year 2019. A procedure for the adjustment of the reported 2019 CO2 reference levels will also need to be introduced to address the effects of possible technical changes in VECTO, for instance with regards to payload values or the inclusion in VECTO of new technologies affecting the mission profiles. Depending on the options as regards the timing of the CO2 emission targets (see Section 5.1.5), one or two targets will need to be defined - for 2025 and/or 2030. For the option where targets are defined for both 2025 and 2030, the emission reduction trajectory between 2019 and 2030 could be either linear or non-linear (NL). Taking all of this into account, Table 3 summarises the options considered for EU fleet-wide CO2 emission target levels. The label of the options refers to the percentage reduction to be achieved in 2030 . The baseline represents the situation where no CO2 targets would be set. A certain reduction of CO2 emissions would still be achieved due to autonomous technological improvements, depending on the technology cost assumptions (see Section6.1). The options considered cover the range of views expressed by stakeholders, with HDV manufacturers supporting a target level close to the baseline, while environmental NGOs are in favour of the most ambitious target levels considered as part of these options. Based on the analysis of the fuel savings potentials of the currently available technologies, the full deployment into the fleet of the first two technology types shown in Table 1 in Section 2.1.2, i.e. the technologies readily available and those for which the implementation is constrained by legal restrictions soon to be lifted, would bring about 15% to 20% CO2 emission savings in 2025 compared to the baseline. Table 3: Emission reductions expected under the baseline and options considered as regards the EU fleet-wide CO2 emission target level (% reduction from 2019 level) 2025 2030 Baseline (base costs) 7% 12% Baseline (high costs) 5% 10% Target Level Options TL 20 10% 20% TL 30NL (non-linear) 12.5% 30% TL 30 15% 30% TL 32 17.5% 32% TL 35 20% 35% 5.1.5Timing Considering the likely date of adoption of the standards, the objective of contributing to achieving the 2030 climate and energy objectives, the availability of certified CO2 emission data from 2019 on, as well as the lead time needed for the uptake of new technologies, the following options will be considered for defining the year(s) for which new targets could be set up to 2030. The option of setting no binding targets, but only voluntary or aspirational ones is reflected in the baseline option for the target levels, as experience with a voluntary approach in the light-duty vehicles sector has proven that this does not result in higher emission reductions than what could be expected as a result of “autonomous improvements”.

During the public consultation, most of the HDV manufacturers as well as ACEA had identified the use of voluntary agreements with industry as one of their least preferred options to tackle CO2 emissions. ·Target timing 1: Single CO2 emission target that starts to apply in 2025. For 2030, an aspirational target would be set ·Target timing 2: A first CO2 emission target starts to apply in 2025 and will continue to apply until 2029 and a second, stricter target starts to apply in 2030 ·Target timing 3: Single CO2 emission target that starts to apply in 2030 All options would include a review mechanism in the year 2022 when certified CO2 emission data for three years will have been collected. This review would address the following: ·establish or confirm the 2030 targets for the vehicle groups covered by the first phase of the CO2 emission standards; ·extend the scope to other groups of HDVs not yet covered by the first phase, taking account of the updates of VECTO and the Certification Regulation; ·review the modalities for implementation, for instance with regards to the incentive scheme for zero and low emission vehicles (see Section 5.3). During the public consultation, a strong majority across all stakeholder groups preferred fixed dates over annual reduction targets. Stakeholders justified their preference referring to the need for planning certainty and the necessary lead time for industry to develop the technology taking account of the long product cycle for HDVs. Industry favours option 2 and environmental NGOs option 1. Furthermore, HDV manufacturers have expressed the need to base CO2 emission standards on VECTO CO2 data. Such data will become only gradually available over the next years. The abovementioned review mechanism would allow certain aspects of the CO2 emission standards to be reassessed and adjusted if necessary. This will address the manufacturers’ concerns about the robustness of the data underpinning the CO2 emission standards for 2030. 5.2Distribution of EU fleet-wide CO2 emission target level across HDV groups and manufacturers The practical application of the EU fleet-wide CO2 target requires consideration of the EU fleet composition and its distribution over vehicle groups and manufacturers, who in the end will have to demonstrate compliance. Technical differences between HDVs covered by the various vehicle groups (see Annex 8, Section 8.2) mean that these groups have intrinsically different CO2 emission performances. These differences should be considered when distributing the EU fleet-wide emission targets across the HDV groups. Depending on the predominant use of the vehicles for one of the two mission profiles, each of the four vehicle groups considered could be further split into two sub-groups, either Long Haul or Regional Delivery. Information on the weighting of mission profiles for calculating the regulatory CO2 emissions is given in Annexes 11 and 12. In order to implement the legislation, it needs to be clearly established which target(s) each manufacturer would have to comply with. Two different options will be considered: ·Distribution 1 - Separate targets per HDV sub-group: The CO2 emission reduction targets (in percentages) for each HDV sub-group are determined such that the total costs across all HDVs covered, i.e. the overall technology costs minus the fuel savings, are minimized. Each of the sub-group targets would apply for each of the manufacturers. This would allow for reflecting the differences in cost-effective emission reduction potentials between vehicle sub-groups. For this reason, there would be no need for additional flexibility for individual manufacturers in implementing these targets. ·Distribution 2 - Single target per manufacturer: The same CO2 emission reduction target (in percentages) applies for all HDV sub-groups covered. The specific manufacturer targets are defined as the average of those sub-group targets, weighted according to the number of lorries registered within each sub-group and a factor reflecting their utility. The utility factor would depend on the unit for expressing the target and, where relevant, would cover mileage (km), payload (t), volume (m³). This option is described in further detail in Annex 11. It should be noted that both options will lead to different target levels in absolute terms for the different HDV sub-groups due to the significant differences in fuel consumption per 100 tkm as illustrated in Annex 11. During the stakeholder consultation, manufacturers expressed their support for option 2.

5.3Incentives for Zero- and Low-Emission Vehicles (ZEV/LEV) The July 2016 Commission's European Strategy for Low-Emission mobility highlighted the increasing role of zero- and low-emission vehicles in delivering CO2 reductions in the road transport sector, especially in the medium- and long-term. In view of the low uptake of these vehicles in the HDV sector, several options are considered with the aim of incentivising their deployment. 5.3.1Scope of the ZEV/LEV incentive In order to identify which vehicles would qualify for the ZEV/LEV incentive, it is necessary to define which types of HDV would be eligible. Two options are considered in this respect: • Scope 1: ZEV only, meaning that only HDVs with CO2 emissions of zero would qualify; • Scope 2: ZEV and LEV, meaning that all HDVs with CO2 emissions significantly below the fleet-wide average would qualify. Under option Scope 2, LEV would be vehicles emitting less than half of the average fleet-wide emissions. This approach is in line with the one taken for LDV. As fleet-wide average HDV emissions are currently around 800 g CO2/km and taking into account the expected efficiency improvements by 2025, a HDV would qualify as a LEV if it emits less than 350 g CO2/km. This would correspond, using the current weighing of VECTO mission profiles, to 30 g CO2/tkm. Furthermore, as proposed for cars and vans from 2025 on, LEV with the lowest emissions would be incentivised more by taking into account for the purpose of the crediting system the emission level of the vehicle. Each ZEV and LEV would be counted as 1-(E/350), with E being the vehicle's CO2 emissions in g/km. The use of other types of alternative fuels than electricity or hydrogen, such as biodiesel, biogas or e-fuels, has been considered as part of the option on a Well-To-Wheel (WTW) approach for the metric (see Section 5.1.2). Tailpipe CO2 emissions of vehicles running on such fuels are comparable with those of vehicles running on conventional fossil fuels. In these cases, the potential emissions savings of using the alternative fuels would only occur at the stage of the production of the fuels. 5.3.2Type and level of incentive Regulatory tools used or considered for incentivising the uptake of ZEV/LEV are those which were considered in the context of light-duty vehicles : ·ZEV/LEV incentive type 1: super-credit system Under the current Cars and Vans Regulations, a "super-credit" modality exists, under which, during a limited number of years around the entry into effect of new CO2 target values, ZEV and LEV may be counted as more than one vehicle for the purpose of calculating the average specific emissions of a manufacturer. In analogy, under option 1, each ZEV/LEV registered by a manufacturer in a given year would be counted multiple times for the purpose of calculating the average specific emissions of the manufacturer. In order to avoid too much weakening of the CO2 target, a cap needs to be established on the number of super-credits that may be used. Drawing on the rules established for cars, this cap could be set so that average specific emissions of the manufacturer are not lowered by more than 2.5% to 3%. ·ZEV/LEV incentive type 2: one-way crediting system based on a benchmark for the ZEV/LEV share of the fleet ·ZEV/LEV incentive type 3: two-way crediting system based on a benchmark for the ZEV/LEV share of the fleet Under Option 2 and 3, a crediting system is used, which works in connection with a manufacturer's specific CO2 target. A benchmark is defined for the share of ZEV/LEV in the new fleet in a given year. The specific CO2 target of a manufacturer exceeding this ZEV/LEV benchmark will be relaxed depending on the extent to which the benchmark is exceeded (1% less strict target for each additional percent of ZEV/LEV), subject to a cap. In addition, under option 3), the specific emissions target of a manufacturer would be tightened in case he would register less ZEV/LEV than the benchmark level. In order to avoid too much weakening of the CO2 target, a cap would be set allowing a manufacturer's specific CO2 target not to be relaxed by more than 2.5%. ·ZEV/LEV incentive type 4: ZEV/LEV binding mandate: Under this option, each manufacturer's fleet of new HDV would need to have at least the share of ZEV/LEV established by the binding mandate.

·ZEV/LEV incentive - variant: allow ZEV HDV, which are outside the scope of the Regulation, to be counted for the purpose of the ZEV/LEV incentive. Under this variant, which could work under each of the four options considered, next to the HDV falling with the scope of the Regulation, also other HDV, which are ZEV and which are registered by the same manufacturer, would be taken into account for the purpose of the incentive mechanism. This would mean for example that a manufacturer registering zero-emission buses or small lorries could obtain super-credits for those vehicles or that those vehicles could count towards meeting the benchmark or mandate level established. This approach would currently only work for ZEV, as they could be defined as having zero emissions according to the type-approval properties of their engines, i.e. independently of the certification of the whole vehicles based on VECTO. The situation is different for LEV, the CO2 emissions of which can only be determined once they are covered by the Certification Regulation. Considering those LEV for the purpose of these incentives would also require further analysis on the appropriate level of the threshold for defining such vehicles. Based on the on-going further development of VECTO (see Annex 8.1), it is expected that by 1 January 2025 also these vehicles will be subject to the Certification Regulation. Finally, as zero-emission buses are to some extent already incentivised via requirements on public tendering through the proposed revision of the Clean Vehicle Directive, and to avoid that the incentive would exclusively target one vehicle group, a restriction would apply next to the above-mentioned caps. This would limit the share of credits that could be attributed to buses and smaller lorries to a maximum of 50% of the cap (under options 1-3) or mandate (under option 4). During the public consultation, HDV manufacturers expressed their support for the introduction of super-credits (option 1). Environmental NGOs were in favour of introducing a mandate (option 4). 5.4Elements for Cost-Effective Implementation (Flexibilities) Elements increasing the flexibility for manufacturers for implementing the CO2 standards set, while not undermining the overall objectives of the policy should lower the costs of compliance and improve the cost-effectiveness of the policy. Such options have been used in the LDV CO2 Regulations. The evaluation of those Regulations judged these flexibilities positively in terms of their impacts. Flexibilities have also been used in the US under the HDV emissions legislation. The majority of stakeholders across all stakeholder groups was in favour of pooling, banking/borrowing, and trading to support the cost-effective implementation of the targets. However, civil society organisations supported trading only and argued that the other options may undermine the legislation. HDV manufacturers supported only the introduction of exemptions and of banking and borrowing. HDV manufacturers also suggested to introduce an eco-innovation scheme as in the LDV legislation, where it covers innovative CO2 reducing technologies, the effect of which cannot be demonstrated during the physical type approval test cycle. However, for HDVs, CO2 emissions are not measured on a physical test cycle but simulated with VECTO. The possibilities of considering new technologies in VECTO are therefore much wider and VECTO will be further improved and updated to cover the effects of new innovative technologies, as illustrated in Annex 8. This is a more straightforward and transparent procedure than introducing a new parallel eco-innovation scheme. As a result, this option is not considered further for the analysis. 5.4.1Exemptions While most of the HDVs in the groups 4, 5, 9, 10 are used for delivery purposes, there are also a series of HDV, which are used for other purposes, such as construction lorries, garbage lorries, concrete mixers etc. Together, these vehicles can be described as "vocational vehicles". According to data from HDV manufacturers, these vocational vehicles represent less than 2% of the fleet of each manufacturer. In view of their particular uses, vocational vehicles differ substantially from the HDVs used for the delivery of goods. Due to their technical characteristics and relatively small annual mileage, the possibilities of reducing CO2 emissions are both more limited and less cost-efficient than for delivery vehicles. During the public consultation, HDV manufacturers called for exempting vocational vehicles from the requirements of CO2 emission standards. Currently, vocational vehicles cannot be identified on the basis of clear technical criteria. However, the necessary changes will be made in the type approval legislation to ensure that this identification is possible. This requires the introduction of a multi-stage type approval in the HDV CO2 certification process. Before these changes are made in the type approval legislation, vocational vehicles are identified on the basis that they are not certified on a delivery-type mission profile in VECTO. Consideration was also given to small-volume manufacturers, but the analysis has shown that there are currently no such manufacturers operating in the EU market and there is no indication of new entrants beside manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles, which would not have difficulties in meeting the targets. As a result, the option of exempting small-volume manufacturers was not considered further. No stakeholders have asked for such exemptions.

Consequently, the only option considered regarding exemptions is: ·Exempt vocational vehicles of a manufacturer's fleet 5.4.2Flexibilities across manufacturers In order to provide manufacturers with additional flexibility for the purpose of achieving compliance with the target, the following options are considered: ·Target flexibility 1: Allow pooling between manufacturers A group of individual manufacturers may agree to form a "pool", which enables them to be considered as a single entity for the purpose of compliance with the joint target. ·Target flexibility 2: Allow trading between manufacturers Trading would allow individual manufacturers (or pools) to trade credits depending on their performance. A manufacturer (pool) overachieving its specific CO2 emissions target would obtain credits that could be sold to another manufacturer (pool), which would otherwise not meet its target. The main distinction with pooling is that trading does not require an upfront decision by manufacturers on which other manufacturer(s) to associate with. The decision to trade would take place at the time the provisional emission performance of the manufacturer (pool) is known. 5.4.3Flexibilities across different target years Compliance checks are necessary to ensure effective implementation of the CO2 emission targets. As indicated in Section 5.1.5, target compliance would be assessed based on the emissions in a given year. In this respect, additional flexibility could be provided and the following options are considered. ·Target compliance 1: annual compliance assessment Under this option, target compliance would be assessed on the basis of the specific emissions in one calendar year. In case of non-compliance, penalties would apply (see Section 5.5.3). This option was supported by environmental NGOs. ·Target compliance 2: banking and borrowing Under this option, manufacturers could use banking and/or borrowing of CO2 credits to achieve the CO2 targets applying in a given year. The rationale behind it is that the desired outcome in terms of an overall CO2 emission target should be achieved by a certain time, while the optimal route to that point may differ between actors. This is in particular relevant for the HDV sector where design cycles are much longer than for cars, around 10 to 15 years. Under this option, early action by manufacturers could also be rewarded. Banking would mean that if in a given year the CO2 emissions of a manufacturer are below the target, the manufacturer could carry over the difference as CO2 credits for future compliance purposes. In case its CO2 emissions would exceed the target in one of the following years, the manufacturer could offset these excess emissions with the ‘banked’ CO2 credits. Borrowing would mean that, in a given year, a manufacturer could comply with its CO2 target by ‘borrowing’ CO2 credits, which would have to be ‘paid back’ by using credits obtained in subsequent years from overachieving the target. The design elements of this option are particularly sensitive considering the specificities of the HDV market and the uncertainties on the future levels of emissions. A more detailed description of the option is provided in Annex 9.4. HDV manufacturers have expressed support for the banking and borrowing option.

5.5Governance The effectiveness of the CO2 targets in reducing real emissions depends on the one hand on the representativeness of the VECTO simulation results with respect to average real-world driving, and on the other hand on the extent to which the HDVs placed on the market conform to the reference vehicles tested at type approval. 5.5.1Real-world emissions The effectiveness of technologies to reduce real-world CO2 emissions of vehicles is affected by the actual driving conditions, which vary significantly. Therefore, emissions determined through VECTO simulation will always differ from the emissions achieved in the real world . As such, this is not problematic as long as the expected divergence between the VECTO values and the real world emissions will remain at the same level over time. It is current practice that most HDV manufacturers equip their vehicles with non-standardised fuel metering devices on a voluntary basis. The information derived from these devices could be reported and used for establishing the magnitude of deviations between VECTO CO2/fuel consumption values and real-world values. Consideration could be given to making such reporting mandatory in the future. In addition, it could be considered to mandate the use of standardised devices for measuring fuel consumption, ideally together with load sensors, and to have the resulting data reported anonymously. The following options are therefore considered: ·Real-world emissions 1: Collection, publication and monitoring of real world fuel consumption data reported by manufacturers using currently available devices. ·Real-world emissions 2: Collection, publication and monitoring of real-world fuel consumption data reported by manufacturers, based on mandatory standardised devices. Under option 1, the Commission would be empowered to determine the conditions for collecting and publishing the data, taking into account relevant data protection requirements. Under option 2, the Commission would in addition be empowered to mandate in type approval legislation the installation of standardised devices in all new vehicles. A clear majority of stakeholder groups considered it important to develop processes for assessing the certified CO2 emissions against real driving emissions. Only some component suppliers and vehicle manufacturers were either neutral or explicitly against. 5.5.2Market surveillance Under type-approval legislation, a procedure is currently being developed to verify the type-approved CO2 emissions at the stage of production. A procedure for verifying the CO2 emissions of vehicles on the road, i.e. a so-called in-service conformity test does not yet exist for HDVs. The following option is therefore being considered: ·Market surveillance 1: Introduce in-service conformity tests, the obligation to report deviations and the introduction of a correction mechanism. Under this option, a mechanism would be put in place to detect deviations from the type approval values as part of the conformity of production tests. This would have to be developed under the type approval framework, for instance during verification tests of vehicles in-service. Furthermore, an obligation would be introduced in the CO2 emissions legislation for Member States and manufacturers to systematically inform the Commission of any findings resulting from conformity of production tests or, where applicable, from in-service conformity tests, and of deviations from the type approved CO2 emissions. The CO2 monitoring data for a manufacturer would be corrected in case of serious deviations from the type approval values, which cannot be technically or otherwise justified. The Commission would be empowered to define the details of the procedures. During the open public consultation, most automotive component suppliers and vehicle manufacturers were against or to a lesser extent neutral on the introduction of an ex-post mechanism requiring compliance of the certified CO2 emissions with real-driving emissions. Such an ex-post feedback mechanism was supported by logistics operators, vehicle fleet operators, and civil society organisations. 5.5.3Penalties for non-compliance Ensuring compliance is a key element that guarantees the effectiveness of any regulatory requirement. Financial penalties associated with the failure to meet the required emission standards may act as an incentive for manufacturers to meet their emission targets.

In order to be effective, financial penalties should be set at a level significantly exceeding the average marginal cost of the technologies needed to meet the targets. Under the current LDV legislation the excess emissions premium for exceeding CO2 emission targets from 2019 on is €95 per g CO2/km for each new vehicle registered in the year of exceedance. As HDVs have an average lifetime mileage of around 1.2 million km, which is about six times higher than LDVs, this penalty level would translate into a €570 per g CO2/km penalty for HDVs. Using an average payload value of about 12 tons as set out in VECTO, this value translates into €47.50 per gCO2/tkm, which has been rounded to €50/tkm. The following option is considered with respect to the introduction of financial penalties for manufacturers not complying with their specific CO2 emission targets: ·Penalties 1: Financial penalties. The penalty would apply to each newly registered vehicle of a manufacturer in the year of exceedance. The level of the penalty will be assessed considering the marginal technology costs and the metric chosen to express the target level set. Implementation of these penalties at manufacturer level would need to take account of how the specific targets have been derived from the EU fleet-wide target and the vehicle sub-group targets (see Section 5.2). 6WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 6.1Methodology The quantification of the impacts, in particular as regards the target levels and their distribution across vehicle groups relies on a suite of models and a dedicated set of cost curves covering a broad range of up-to-date technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from HDVs. These cost curves, which show the CO2 reduction potential and costs for over 50 technologies, were determined as part of a study carried out by Commission contractors and work by the JRC. The technologies considered include those that are currently already utilised in vehicles in the marketplace, as well as those expected to be available in the 2020-2030 period. In the preparation of the cost curves, the (im)possibility to combine technologies has been duly taken into account, as has their pre-existing market penetration in the vehicle fleet and possible overlaps in the CO2 saving potential of technologies when combined. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to comment on the work of the study throughout its progress. Two types of cost curves have been considered: I.Base cost assumption: derived from the above mentioned study; II.High cost assumption: reflecting manufacturers' views The high cost assumption has been added in the assessment in order to reflect the views expressed by HDV manufacturers during bilateral meetings highlighting uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness and costs, in particular R&D, of the more advanced technologies many of which are only at the prototype stage, in particular in a 2025 perspective. As regards the technologies readily available, the uncertainty regarding the data used for the cost curves is small. As described in Section 2.1.2, the full deployment of those technologies would bring about 15% to 20% CO2 emission savings in 2025 compared to the baseline. The models used and the link between the new baseline and policy scenarios with the "Reference Scenario 2016" are extensively described in Annex 4. The PRIMES-TREMOVE model was used to project the evolution of the road transport sector. It was consistently used for climate, energy and transport initiatives in the past years. In addition, the DIONE model developed by the JRC was used for the cost assessment. The macro-economic model EXIOMOD developed by TNO was used to quantify the impacts on GDP and sectoral turnover. It takes input from PRIMES-TREMOVE, including fuel consumption from lorries, and annuity payments for capital costs for road transport vehicles, to quantify the impact on other sectors of the economy. 6.2EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets 6.2.1Scope 6.2.1.1Options Scope 1 and Scope 2

Options Scope 1 (covering HDV groups 4, 5, 9 and 10) and Scope 2 (covering only group 5) are assessed together as they both rely on whole-vehicle CO2 standards and differ only in scale. As the magnitude of the economic, social and environmental impacts of these options will mainly depend on the CO2 target level, the quantitative assessment is addressed in Section 6.2.4.2. Economic Impact The economic impacts of options Scope 1 and 2 relate to the scale of the investments needed to introduce the CO2 abatement technologies and the impact of the resulting fuel savings on the economy as a whole. Most emission reduction technologies can be applied in all lorry groups. Technology costs are mainly composed of two parts: (1) variable costs and (2) fixed costs, the share of which depends on economies of scale. Even though small differences may exist for some technologies, the cost analysis indicates that variable technology costs are largely similar across the four lorry groups relevant for the options considered here. This is elaborated further in Section 6.3. As the relative share of the fixed technology costs for an individual vehicle decreases with the number of vehicles for which the technology is installed, economies of scale make option Scope 1 more cost-efficient for achieving a given CO2 emission reduction target. This also entail that this option might be more beneficial in terms of innovation development and strengthening of manufacturers´ technological leadership. Furthermore, as a larger number of their vehicles would be covered under Scope option 1, this option would translate into higher overall fuel savings for transport operators. Social Impact There is no particular social impact of the options Scope 1 and Scope 2. Environmental Impact As the vehicle groups 4, 5, 9 and 10 together account for some 65% to 70% of total HDV CO2 emissions, option Scope 1 is expected to have a firmly positive and sizeable environmental impact as it addresses all the major CO2 emitters in the HDV sector. Under option Scope 2, the legislation would cover some 50% of total HDV emissions. With the target levels and all other design elements being equal, this option will have a positive environmental effect in reducing emissions, but on a smaller scale as it focuses on one single lorry group. 6.2.1.2Option Scope 3 Under option Scope 3, two separate standards for whole-vehicle CO2 and the engine-only CO2 emissions would be set. Economic Impact Option Scope 3 would not allow manufacturers to achieve the required level of emissions in the most cost-efficient way by combining all available CO2 reduction technologies. It would most likely result in higher compliance costs. It would also deviate from a technology neutral approach, limit technological flexibility and undermine innovation in non-engine related CO2 reduction technologies. Administrative burden This option would create an additional administrative burden due to the additional reporting and compliance systems that would need to be put in place to regulate separately the performance of engines. Social Impact There is no particular social impact of this option.

Environmental Impact By setting whole-vehicle standards, engine emissions would already be regulated as they are captured by VECTO. Introducing engine-only standards on top of whole-vehicle standards would therefore not necessarily create a higher environmental ambition level. There could be a positive environmental impact if the requirements of the engine-only standards would go beyond the requirements of the whole vehicle standards. However, at least the same level of environmental impact can be achieved if the whole-vehicle standards are set with a more ambitious target level. During the open public consultation, some civil society organisations gave preference to this option as they consider it would allow better exploiting the emission reduction potential of the engines. However, this especially concerned smaller vehicles that are not yet covered by VECTO. 6.2.2Metric for expressing the CO2 emission targets 6.2.2.1Metric 1: Tank to Wheel (TTW) approach Economic Impact The economic impact will depend on the target level chosen. Environmental Impact Under this option, the legislation focuses on the vehicle's CO2 efficiency. The TTW approach is currently used for CO2 targets for LDV, where it effectively contributed to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and vans. The actual environmental impact will depend on the target level chosen. In case a higher uptake of more fuel-efficient vehicles reduces the overall demand for fuels, this would also lower WTT emissions. The focus on vehicle efficiency also ensures that investments in research and development in this area would be incentivised with a corresponding positive effect on technological leadership. Other considerations This option would be directly linked with the VECTO and Certification Regulation, which provide tailpipe CO2 emission values. The evaluation study of the Cars and Vans Regulations noted that the TTW approach has proven to be an effective way of triggering the uptake of vehicle technology and starting a shift towards alternative powertrains. The TTW approach allows vehicle manufacturers and automotive component suppliers to focus their investments towards technologies increasing vehicles’ fuel efficiency which is within their remit of decision making. Fostering the uptake of those technologies lowers investment costs and technology costs thanks to economies of scale. During the public consultation, most stakeholders supported this approach. 6.2.2.2Metric 2: Well to Wheel (WTW) approach General considerations As explained in the impact assessment accompanying the Commission's proposal setting CO2 emission performance standards for passenger cars and vans for the period after 2020, the two arguments most frequently used in favour of a WTW metric are that this would allow: I.accounting for the WTT emissions of electricity generation, particularly as the power sector is not yet fully decarbonised; II.rewarding the use of low-carbon fuels like bio-ethanol, bio-methane or synthetic fuels produced from renewable electricity. As regards the second point, particularly the Commission's 2016 RED-II proposal provides for the strongest possible economic incentives by setting sales mandates for the deployment of such low-carbon fuels across all sectors, including freight transport. This means that a WTW metric would de facto constitute double regulation for these sectors.

Environmental impacts There is a risk that a WTW approach could undermine the environmental effectiveness of EU legislation as emission reductions counted under RED-II would be double counted under the vehicles legislation. This would make it difficult for Member States to estimate the emission reductions in the transport sector stemming from RED-II and the improvements in HDV CO2 efficiency improvements, particularly as the consumption of biofuels is not evenly distributed among Member States. In order to maintain the overall environmental ambition of the two legislative acts together, a WTW approach would most likely require more stringent target levels in either the renewable energy or the vehicle emissions legislation. Other considerations In view of the very limited uptake of electrified HDV, the need to account for the WTT emissions from electricity is less relevant for HDVs. In addition, as the WTW emissions are not a property of the vehicle alone, it would be very difficult to establish a target value which is accurate, fair and cost-effective. Uncertain ex-ante assumptions would have to be used to account for the potential use of low-carbon fuels as it is not possible to determine upfront on which fuel a vehicle with a conventional powertrain will run. An ex-post crediting approach based on the actual fuel use and GHG emission factors could serve as an alternative, but would face similar problems as it would be very difficult to set WTT factors for the different fuels available on the market. Besides these major uncertainties, vehicle manufacturers have no influence on the fuels used by the vehicle operator and they may therefore be held responsible for emissions they have no or little control of. This approach was supported by the fuel industry and transport operators. 6.2.3Unit Metric Payloads, mileage and transport volume are fixed parameters for each mission profile as part of the VECTO simulations. This means that, for a given mission profile, the numerical values of the VECTO simulation corresponding to different unit metrics are proportional. As a result, the choice of the unit metric is mainly a question of presentation. The unit g CO2/km is currently used for setting CO2 emission limits for cars and vans. Using this unit for HDVs would ease the comparison with the light duty sector. It is also most commonly used in existing publications within the sector. However, this metric would not represent the fact that lorries carry heavy or voluminous loads. The use of this metric is supported by environmental NGOs but not by the transport sector, which calls for the targets to reflect the transport utility. The unit g CO2/tkm expresses CO2 emissions in relation to the mileage travelled and the mass of goods transported. It is supported by manufacturers and transport operators. The unit g CO2/m3km expresses CO2 emissions in relation to the mileage travelled and the volume of goods the vehicle could potentially transport. From a technical perspective, CO2 emissions and transport volume are only weakly correlated. Furthermore, the current certification regulation does not distinguish between the possible different transport volumes as it assumes standard bodies and trailers added to the base vehicles. This unit metric is therefore not appropriate for the existing setup of the certification process. The choice of unit metric will not have an effect on innovation. 6.2.4Target levels 6.2.4.1Fleet composition Different CO2 target levels will not only affect the uptake of fuel-efficient technologies within a given vehicle category (powertrain), but may also change the share of different powertrains in the EU fleet. The results obtained from the PRIMES TREMOVE model show a gradual increase in the uptake of LNG lorries at the expense of diesel fuelled lorries as CO2 targets get tighter. Under the baseline, with the base cost assumptions, the share of diesel HDV is projected to be 97.6% in 2025 and 96.3% in 2030, the remainder of the fleet being LNG lorries. The diesel share becomes 94% in 2025 and 89.6% in 2030 under the option TL20 and reduces further to 87.2% in 2025 and 77.5% in 2030 under the option TL35. More specific information is available in Annex 10.1. 6.2.4.2Economic impacts In this section, the following economic impacts will be considered: (I)Net economic savings from different perspectives (societal, first use, second use)

(II)Energy system impacts and transport activity impacts (III)Macro-economic impacts in terms of changes in GDP and sectoral aspects Net economic savings taking different perspectives The direct economic impacts of the options have been assessed by considering the changes compared to the corresponding baseline in technology costs and fuel costs for an "average" new lorry, registered in 2025 or in 2030. An "average" new lorry of a given year is defined by averaging the contributions of the different vehicle groups, weighted according to their market penetration as estimated. The new fleet composition in a given year results from the need to comply with the requirements of the new policy. Therefore, the different policy options lead to different projected fleet compositions, characterised by different shares of powertrain types (diesel, LNG, etc.) in the different vehicle groups. As the vehicle groups reflect certain technical characteristics depending on the use of the vehicle, vehicles in the different groups cannot substitute each other. Therefore, in the model, the shares of vehicles in the different groups were kept constant on the basis of the sales data received from manufacturers for the 2016 fleet. For this analysis, the following three indicators have been used: I.Net economic benefits over the vehicle lifetime from a societal perspective: This parameter reflects the change in net costs over the lifetime of 15 years of an "average" new lorry without considering taxes and using a discount rate of 4%. It also includes the CO2 avoided costs. II.Total cost of ownership (TCO) for the first use (TCO-first use):

This parameter reflects the change in net costs, during the first five years after registration of use, i.e. the average time the first buyer is using the vehicle. Taxes are included, except VAT in view of the commercial use of the vehicles, and a discount rate of 9.5% is used. III.Total cost of ownership (TCO) for the second use (TCO-second use):

This parameter reflects the change in costs, from the sixth year of the lorry onwards. Again, taxes are included and a discount rate of 9.5% is used. Cost assumptions As explained in Section 6.1, two types of cost curves have been used for the analysis to reflect base and high costs assumptions. For the calculation of the net costs and savings under the two cost assumptions, the corresponding baseline was used. A sensitivity analysis on the economic impacts with varying international oil price is presented in Annex 10.6. 6.2.4.2.1Net economic benefits over the vehicle lifetime from a societal perspective Figure 8 shows the net economic benefits per vehicle over the vehicle lifetime from a societal perspective expressed as the difference from the baseline for an average lorry registered in 2025 and in 2030 under the different target level options. These economic benefits are the sum of the net savings and the avoided CO2 costs. As shown in Annex 10.2, the net savings are the difference between the fuel savings and the incremental capital costs, which in this case are equal to the additional manufacturing costs. Both in 2025 and in 2030, very significant net benefits can be realised under all options with both base and high cost assumptions. Net benefits are profoundly higher compared to cars and vans. Lorries have a much higher fuel consumption per kilometre and run much higher mileages compared to cars and vans. With the base and the high cost assumptions, net benefits are highest under the most ambitious option TL35 in both 2025 and 2030. Whether net savings under the various options are higher or lower under the base or high costs assumptions depends on a number of factors. These include the difference in autonomous improvements under the two baselines and the increase in LNG share in the fleet needed to meet the higher levels of ambition. The avoided cost of CO2 increase as the CO2 target gets stricter. See more detailed information in Annex 10.3.

6.2.4.2.2TCO-first use (5 years) Figure 9 shows the net savings, expressed as the difference from the corresponding baseline, from a first-use perspective over five years for an average new lorry registered in 2025 and in 2030 under the different target level options considered. The underlying capital costs and fuel savings are shown in Annex 10.4. Both in 2025 and in 2030, considerable cumulative net savings occur over five years for all options considered, both for the base and high cost assumptions. Net savings are slightly lower for the high cost case. However, benefits are significantly smaller compared to the societal perspective. The difference mainly represents the external CO2 costs avoided. From the perspective of the truck operator, the cumulative net savings represent between 0.01 and 0.05 EUR per km in 2025 or 1% to 4% of the total operating costs depending the options considered. In 2030, the ranges are 0.04 to 0.11 EUR per km or 3% – 12% of the total operating costs. Under both cost assumptions, net savings are highest with option TL35 in 2025 and in 2030. 6.2.4.2.3TCO-second use Figure 10 shows the net savings from a second use perspective under the different target level options, expressed as the difference with the baseline under the two cost assumptions, for an average new lorry registered in 2025 and in 2030. The underlying capital costs and fuel savings are shown in Annex 10.5. Both in 2025 and in 2030, considerable net savings occur, which are roughly one third smaller during the second use compared to the first use. Under both cost assumptions, the highest net savings are realised with