Figure 4-10 shows the maximum distance between hydrogen refuelling points that would be achieved, when they are evenly distributed on the road TEN-T Core Network within each Member State, if the 2025 targets of the NPFs are achieved. For most of the Member States that have defined targets for hydrogen refuelling the maximum distance would be, by a large margin, below 300 km.

Hydrogen is included in 14 NPFs (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, and UK) and some Member States, for example Germany, have defined ambitious targets for hydrogen infrastructure. The map in Figure 4-8 shows the targets for hydrogen refuelling points across Member States by 2025 and Figure 4-9 gives an overview of the 2025 hydrogen refuelling point targets per NPF and current level of target achievement. First steps towards deployment of hydrogen vehicles and refuelling infrastructure are taking place, however it can be noted that while in central Europe hydrogen refuelling infrastructure will be deployed this will not be the case in North Eastern Europe.

Shore-side electricity and electricity supply for stationary airplanes are scarcely covered in the various NPFs and very few NPF contain any targets or measures for an increase of these alternative fuel sources.

The maps in Figure 4-7 show the results of the assessment for the sufficiency of LNG refuelling points in TEN-T Core Network maritime ports (left map) and LNG refuelling points in TEN-T Core Network inland ports (right map). The plans to deploy LNG in maritime and inland ports vary between high ambition (Finland, Hungary, Italy) and no consideration, leaving a number of ports without any solution for LNG refuelling. For most of the inland waterway corridors the coverage of LNG refuelling will likely be inadequate according to the targets of the NPFs.

Based on the targets provided in the NPFs, it is evident that some portions of the road TEN-T Core Network will remain without LNG refuelling infrastructure. In particular, attention should be paid to the Southern part of the Atlantic Corridor and LNG cross-border continuity Spain/Portugal, the Southern part of the Scandinavian Mediterranean Corridor, the central and Eastern part of the Mediterranean Corridor, the entire Orient-East-Mediterranean Corridor, and the Baltic part of the North-Sea Baltic Corridor.

Table 4-3 shows the normalised difference index for the density of LNG refuelling point targets using the road TEN-T Core Network of an MS. Because of the lacking Greek and Romanian NPFs, no normalised difference index can be calculated for Bulgaria. The table reveals big differences between neighbouring Member States regarding their density of LNG refuelling point targets along the road TEN-T Core Network. If the normalised difference index is also interpreted as an indicator for cross-border continuity in the sense that the level of infrastructure density varies a lot across borders, the following cross-border continuity issues can be identified: Austria/Hungary, Austria/Italy, Belgium/Germany, Czech Republic/Germany, Germany/France, Germany/Luxembourg, Germany/the Netherlands, Finland/Sweden, Croatia/Hungary, Hungary/Slovakia, Latvia/Lithuania, and Latvia/Estonia.

According to the NPF, a total of 379 LNG refuelling points will be deployed across Europe. The map in Figure 4-6 shows the results of the assessment for the sufficiency of LNG refuelling points along the road TEN-T Core Network. The picture is very much dominated by the lack of or insufficient LNG refuelling targets for heavy-duty trucks in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Sweden. This leads to insufficient coverage of the road TEN-T network crossing these countries and consequently cross-border issues with all their neighbouring Member States.

LNG for heavy-duty vehicles is covered by 19 NPFs and initial steps to ensure adequate TEN-T coverage are taken. However, according to the NPFs, appropriate coverage of the road TEN-T Core Network with LNG refuelling points is not guaranteed. Several Member States mention the need of further technical developments of LNG heavy-duty vehicles (e.g. longer driving ranges). Moreover, several Member States plan to review their LNG refuelling infrastructure targets after performing further market and cost-benefit analyses.

Table 4-2 shows the normalised difference index for the density of CNG refuelling point targets using the total road network of an MS. The table reveals big differences between neighbouring Member States regarding their density of CNG refuelling point targets. If the normalised difference index is also interpreted as an indicator for cross-border continuity in the sense that the level of infrastructure density varies a lot across borders, the following cross-border continuity issues can be identified: Belgium/Germany, Belgium/France, Belgium/Luxembourg, Czech Republic/Poland, Germany/Denmark, Germany/France, Germany/Luxembourg, Germany/Poland, France/Italy, Poland/Slovakia. Because of the lacking Greek and Romanian NPF, no normalised difference index can be calculated for Bulgaria.

The maps in Figure 4-5 show the sufficiency index for the current situation and for the 2020 targeted CNG refuelling infrastructure accessible to the public. A ratio of at least one publicly accessible CNG refuelling point per 600 CNG vehicles in a given Member State is considered sufficient. 14 Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, France, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and UK) did not provide any CNG vehicle estimates for the future. For these, the sufficiency index could not be calculated. Out of these thirteen Member States, three (Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Sweden) did not provide any targets for CNG refuelling points accessible to the public.

Some NPFs (Germany, Luxembourg, and Netherlands) express a pessimistic view on the viability of CNG for road, while others (Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Italy) consider this as a priority. Several Member States, especially the ones that currently have a rather high number of CNG refuelling points in comparison to CNG vehicles on the road, state that they have no plans to support a further increase of CNG refuelling infrastructure. The 2020 planned ratio of CNG vehicles to refuelling points ranges from 1,000 to 100, the target attainment level as of today, calculated by dividing the number of currently available CNG refuelling points by future targets, varies between 0 and 100%. Figure 4-4 provides an overview of the 2020 targeted CNG refuelling points accessible to the public and CNG vehicle estimates per NPF as well as the current level of target achievement.

From the analysis of the NPFs recharging point targets, it becomes evident that they are not coherent at Union level. The NPFs are diverging in their ambition levels vis-à-vis the deployment of recharging points accessible to the public. Table 4-1 shows the normalised difference index for the density of recharging point targets using the total road network of an MS. The table reveals big differences between neighbouring Member States regarding their density of recharging point targets. If the normalised difference index is also interpreted as an indicator for cross-border continuity in the sense that the level of infrastructure density varies a lot across borders, the following cross-border continuity issues can be identified: Austria/Czech Republic, Belgium/France, Czech Republic/Germany, Germany/Denmark, Germany/Netherlands, Germany/Poland, Spain/France, Spain/Portugal, France/Luxembourg, Croatia/Hungary, Lithuania/Latvia, Lithuania/Poland, Netherlands/UK. Because of the lacking Greek and Romanian NPF, no normalised difference index can be calculated for Bulgaria.

Coverage of the TEN-T network largely seems to be progressing well, the distance targets being usually met. Some portions of the road TEN-T Core Network will remain without appropriate recharging infrastructure, according to the NPFs. The map in Figure 4-3 shows the assessment results for TEN-T Core Network coverage with recharging points by 2025.

The maps in Figure 4-2 show how the ratio of publicly accessible recharging points deteriorates in almost all Member States from today until 2020, when the targets for recharging points and EV estimates materialise.

Figure 4-1 summarises the information for the targeted publicly accessible recharging points and EV estimates per NPF as well as the current attainment level. Almost all NPFs define targets for publicly accessible recharging points. However, only seven NPFs (Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands and Portugal) define a target that would ensure at least one publicly accessible recharging point per 10 electric vehicles for 2020. For the Member States that provide future EV estimates, the ratio of electric vehicles per publicly accessible recharging point ranges from 5 (in Latvia) to 32 in the different NPFs. The planned targets, which are ambiguously defined in some cases, also fall significantly short of the originally proposed targets that were used for the impact assessment of the proposed Directive. The current attainment level for the 2020 targets of publicly accessible recharging points, calculated as the ratio between current and targeted recharging points ranges from 1% to 88%.

This section describes the results of the analysis for important EU policy targets. It covers the aspects that are directly targeted by the scope of the Directive (alternative fuels infrastructure and vehicles/vessels) as well as other targets to which the Directive contributes as one initiative among other policies in place.

Table 3-1 gives an overview of the infrastructure targets sufficiency and level of attainment. Two NPFs do not contain targets for publicly accessible recharging points, four do not contain targets for CNG refuelling points, and six do not contain targets for LNG refuelling points for heavy-duty vehicles along the road TEN-T Core Network. Four NPFs do not contain targets for LNG refuelling points at maritime ports and three do not contain targets for LNG refuelling points at inland ports.

From the analysis of the NPFs it becomes evident that they are not coherent at Union level. The NPFs are diverging in view of prioritising different alternative fuels. They feature very different ambition levels across Member States both in terms of projected future development of alternative fuels and their corresponding infrastructure. In general, the future estimates and targets are much lower than what was used as a basis for the proposed Directive. Even with low ambition, very few NPFs define sufficient corresponding targets for alternative fuels infrastructure. The adoption status and likely impact of support measures seems too low as to ensure that the national targets and objectives contained in the NPFs are reached. All this can lead to an emerging market fragmentation at EU level and even within certain Member States.

Besides the two Member States that have not sent their NPF to the Commission, 16 Member States have not defined alternative fuels infrastructure targets for all mandatory fuels/modes or do not meet all requirements of article 3 of the Directive and the Commission will consider the option to start infringement procedures also against these Member States.

Figure 3-1 gives a high-level overview on the compliance of the NPFs with the requirements of the Directive.

The Commission started infringement procedures against the Member States that did not sent their NPF to the Commission and against one Member State, the NPF of which did not contain any targets for alternative fuels infrastructure.

This section provides an overview of the targets and objectives, the measure scores and comprehensiveness in the Member States' NPFs as well as the current level of attainment per Member State. By adoption date of this Staff Working Document, 26 Member States had notified their NPFs to the Commission. However, the cut-off date for NPFs to be included in the technical analysis of this Staff Working Document was 1 October 2017. By that time 24 Member States had notified. The analysis in this Staff Working Document concentrates hence on the NPFs submitted by the cut-off date.

The model allows for running scenarios on a wide number of parameters. These include, for example:

The domestic employment effect is derived by aggregating over all sectors, and the EU-wide effect by then aggregating over all Member States.

As labour productivity varies for each Member State and sector, this calculation is done on sectoral level. Data on the number of persons employed in the production of AFI is not available, thus productivities in the sectors contributing to AFI build-up (see Table 2-1) were used. These were derived by dividing each Member State's sectoral gross value added by the number of employed persons, both taken from Eurostat.

As shown in Figure 2-1, the employment effect of building a given type of infrastructure in each Member State is derived from domestic GVA per sector, dividing it by productivity. This yields the amount of person-years required to build the AFI envisaged in the NPF, which is assumed to translate into employment.

Summing over the sectors, the Member States' domestic GVA effect from the particular infrastructure type results. For each Member State, total sectoral GVA effect includes the domestic effect of own AFI installation and the Member States exports of preliminary products for AFI installation to other EU countries. The sum over all AFI types per Member State is the total national GVA effect from the EU-wide implementation of AFI targets as envisaged in the NPFs, and the sum over all Member States yields the EU-wide effect. AFI maintenance costs are included via a multiplier representing annual costs as percentage of total investment per facility.

The national GVA effect resulting in the sectors C25, C26, C27 and C28 from the production is allocated completely (adjusted by preliminary imports) to the producing country. The costs of installing a recharging or refuelling point, occurring in sectors C33 and F, is divided into a GVA effect in the producing country and the country that installs the infrastructure.

For each of these sectors, the sectoral GVP is multiplied by the sectoral domestic production share, yielding the sectoral domestic GVA for each of the six sectors for the AFI type and Member State under consideration. By default, the sectoral domestic share in AFI production in each Member State is assumed to be equal to the Member State's present sectoral share of production value within the EU, which is derived from Eurostat data. The model allows reallocating domestic production shares as well as import shares from outside the EU for scenario analysis.

In a next step, the share of each Member State in the production and installation of AFI needs to be determined, and imports from outside the EU need to be deducted. As the share of imported preliminary products differs among economic sectors, the GVP is sub-split. This is done by assigning the different technological components of an AFI installation (and thus their costs) to different economic sectors, on the basis of data on the composition and prices of the different AFI types. Price information was taken from recent studies and industry sources. AFI GVP is assigned to the following sectors (in line with Eurostat NACE Rev. 2):

Annual numbers of new AFI installed are multiplied by their net market prices to derive the Gross Value of Production (GVP). As the market price of a technology includes all value added along the value chain, it is a reasonable proxy for the calculation of gross value of production added.

Figure 2-1 shows a model flowchart for the calculation of the domestic economic effects of recharging point build-up in a Member State. For each infrastructure type and Member State, AFI build-up targets are derived in a first step, calculated as the target number of recharging or refuelling points minus present number as given in the NPF. Summed over Member States, the number of total planned AFI installations of each type in the EU results. For the different types of infrastructure, target years are given by the Directive. AFI build-up is assumed to be linear up to the target year (e.g., 2020 for recharging points), with no further growth assumed in later years.

A computational model was developed for calculating the value creation and employment effects resulting from AFI build-up as described in the NPFs. It outputs Member States' domestic as well as the EU-wide effects resulting from infrastructure production and installation. Types of infrastructure covered by the model include electricity recharging points and CNG, LNG and H2 refuelling points for road transport.

SHERPA is used to evaluate the impact of the NPFs on air quality. As the current spatial resolution of the SHERPA model is 7x7 km2, the focus is on the impact of NPFs on urban/regional background (i.e. not hot-spot) concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, and NO2 in various areas in Europe.

The SHERPA tool is currently distributed with default EU-wide data for emissions and source-receptor relationships at 7x7 km2 spatial resolution. Current data refer to 2010, and are related to a specific EU-wide air quality model and emission inventory.

• At which scale (national, regional, local, etc.) should I act to be more efficient?

• What are the priority activities, sectors and pollutants on which to take action?

The tool is based on simplified relationships between emissions and concentration levels, which can be used to answer the following questions:

The SHERPA tool has been developed by the JRC with the aim of supporting national, regional and local authorities in the design and assessment of their air quality plans. It particularly helps identifying the most efficient administrative scale for potential actions in a multi-level governance decision context. SHERPA allows for a rapid exploration of potential air quality improvements resulting from national/regional/local emission reduction measures.

The results on air pollutant emissions from the previous assessment step are used as input to subsequent calculations with the SHERPA (Screening for High Emission Reduction Potential on Air) model in order to assess air quality impacts. The results are displayed as difference maps of main pollutants versus a reference scenario without NPFs.

The following key performance indicators are calculated and summarised for the snapshots 2020, 2025, and 2030: CO2 reduction and reduction of fossil oil use versus the scenario without NPFs. As not all Member States provide estimates and targets for all snapshot years, some of the estimate/target numbers had to be inter- or extrapolated. As a general rule, if an NPF does not contain estimates beyond a given year, it was assumed that the AF vehicle or vessel number stays constant beyond that year.

For waterborne transport and stationary airplanes, emission reductions and energy impacts were taken from the NPFs if the Member State provided these data. If not, emission and energy use factors were used to calculate the respective impacts. For stationary airplanes, the factors were derived based on calculations using emission and energy factors from ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). For shore-side electricity, factors were derived based on calculations from a study commissioned by DG Environment. For LNG for ships, factors were derived based on calculations from a study commissioned by DG MOVE.

DIONE baseline is calibrated on the scenario without NPFs , developed with the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model by ICCS-E3MLab. Fuel consumption and emission calculation for internal combustion engine vehicles is based on the COPERT road transport emission inventory software. For alternative fuels vehicles, an energy and emission calculation methodology has been developed which takes account of vehicle characteristics, trip lengths and speed distributions. For both energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, DIONE can provide real world Tank-to-Wheel (TtW) results up to the year 2050 as well as Well-to-Wheel (WtW) results up to 2030. Well-to-Tank (WtT) emissions for fuels are aligned to the JRC-EUCAR-CONCAWE WtT data. For light-duty vehicles' CO2 emissions, type approval or real world values can be calculated. In this assessment only direct transport emissions, i.e. TtW results were considered.

Scenarios can be run for any single EU Member State (plus some extra neighbouring countries) and pre-defined groupings such as EU28, EU15 and EU12, but it is also possible to define custom scenarios for any region, city, country or other entity of interest.

For road transport the JRC fleet impact model DIONE is used. It is a European Commission owned road transport fleet projection tool and has been used amongst others to support scenario work for the Communication on a European Strategy for low-emission mobility. It allows analysing scenarios of future road vehicle stock, activity, energy consumption and CO2 as well as air pollutant emissions up to 2050. DIONE was developed for assessing transport and energy (policy) options, such as fleet emission targets, vehicle technology transitions, alternative fuels mixes, scrappage schemes, etc. It builds on a detailed and flexible representation of vehicle types, their activities and efficiencies. DIONE can be employed to run scenarios varying in vehicle stock, new registrations, survival rates, activity, efficiency, fuel pathways for Well-to-Wheel (WtW) energy consumption and emissions, biofuel admixture shares, and driving patterns.

The future alternative fuels vehicle/vessel estimates and infrastructure targets from the NPF of each Member State are used as exogenous projected fleet shares in fleet impact calculation tools. Their impacts in terms of CO2, other pollutant emissions, final energy mix for road transport, and reduction of fossil oil use are calculated versus an update of the EU Reference scenario 2016 without NPFs (so-called "scenario without NPFs").

The information on the promotion of the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in public transport services from the individual NPFs is combined in an EU-wide view. The various priorities of the Member States' NPFs are listed. Coherence or divergence of promotion measures at Union level is qualitatively assessed.

The estimates from the individual NPFs are combined in an EU-wide view. The individual estimates are normalised and expressed as the share of alternative fuels vehicles/vessels per total stock in each Member State. Maps are generated to check how coherent or divergent the estimates are at Union level.

The index takes values between “0” in case of the same density of infrastructure in two countries and “1” in case one of the countries has no infrastructure. A threshold NDI value can be defined to identify important discontinuities in infrastructure density, e.g. NDI=0.2 which indicates that one state has a 1.5 times higher infrastructure density than its neighbour country.

where I = Number of AFI / Number of km of road network for a country (here countries 1 and 2).

A quantitative description of differences of Member States’ recharging or refuelling infrastructure density is given by a normalized difference index (NDI), calculated as:

·summarising information on countries which have chosen to provide hydrogen infrastructure in order to identify potential coherent areas with hydrogen availability.

·identifying potential cross-border gaps along the TEN-T network, based on the information provided in the NPFs and the minimum requirements given in Table 1-2 for the mandatory fuels infrastructure,

The aim of this evaluation step is to verify if there remain any gaps in the EU-wide availability of refuelling and recharging infrastructure. The analysis builds upon the infrastructure sufficiency assessment derived from the Member States’ NPFs. The results of this analysis are displayed through summary tables for infrastructure sufficiency, results of the measure assessment and selected maps for specific fuels/modes.

To this end, the targets and objectives from the different Member States' NPFs were used as input to models and calculation tools in order to derive the estimated impacts. The following sub-sections provide an overview on the models and calculation tools employed. Annex B provides more details.

Possible impacts of all NPFs combined on the following EU-wide goals are assessed: (i) achieving a minimum level of refuelling and recharging infrastructure across the EU including cross-border continuity and enabling market uptake of alternative fuels transport systems; (ii) support to the achievement of EU climate and energy objectives; (iii) improvement of air quality; (iv) strengthening the EU's competitiveness and jobs in the alternative fuels infrastructure sector.

For each cluster, the maximum score of all individual overall measure scores (SO) is taken as the cluster score. As a consequence, if a Member State has defined for a given fuel/mode and aim cluster one measure with a high adoption status, high coverage, and high effect, the total score for the cluster would also be high. Comprehensiveness indicates by how much the totality of measures for a given fuel and mode addresses various deployment barriers. It will take into account whether both infrastructure and vehicles are addressed or just one of them, what part of the vehicle population is addressed (e.g. for cars, whether private cars, company cars, commercial cars or several groups are subject to measures), and if financial as well as nonfinancial incentives are provided for within a cluster. The score for comprehensiveness is binary: comprehensive/not comprehensive. The comprehensiveness assessment is independent of the measure score. It is possible that a Member State defines a very comprehensive package of measures addressing a cluster but the total score for all measures could be low.

The measures Mi,j,k are classified as financial (MF) and nonfinancial (MNF) measures. Each measure receives three scores: S1 for status, S2 for coverage and S3 for effect. While for financial measures, the scope assessments, i.e. scores S2 and S3, are obtained on the basis of quantitative indicators, for nonfinancial measures, only score S2 can be obtained quantitatively. For nonfinancial measures, the score S3 for effect is based on qualitative indicators. The measure scores S1, S2 and S3 can only be determined correctly where a complete set of information is available. As explained above, the overall measure score SO is the minimum value of the three scores.

oMeasures necessary to ensure that the national targets and the objectives contained in the NPF are reached (Art. 3 (1) 3rd indent), labelled M1,

Figure 1-1 presents the flowchart for the assessment of a measure. The measures are clustered by

Then, for each measure where evaluations could be derived for status, coverage and effect, its expected overall impact is assessed based on the three scores, as shown in the table below. Following the precautionary principle, the overall measure impact is determined by the lowest evaluation the measure has received regarding its three attributes status, coverage and effect. For example, if the measure has a high coverage and effect but is only under consideration (thus low adoption status), the overall measure assessment will be ‘low’ because it cannot be guaranteed that it will ever come into effect. Likewise, if its status is high (measure in effect) but the measure covers only few infrastructure items or has a low effect, its overall assessment will also be ‘low’. Overall measure assessment will be ‘high’ only if all three attributes are evaluated as ‘high’.

Measure scope is evaluated against two dimensions, i.e. coverage (maximum eligible number or share of infrastructure items or vehicles) and effect (quantification of the impact, e.g., change in cost versus no-measure case), as can be seen in the table below.

Measures are assessed individually by fuel and mode. For a given fuel/mode pair and aim (support to attainment of targets, public transport, non-public recharging points), they are clustered and receive an overall score that can be low, medium or high.

The measures, defined by a Member State in its NPF, are assessed in terms of their adoption status, scope, and comprehensiveness. For the adoption status, the following four categories are differentiated: existing, adopted but not yet in effect, in process of adoption, and under consideration. The scope of the measures consists of two dimensions: coverage and effect. Coverage is an indicator of the number or share of vehicles or refuelling/recharging points eligible to benefit from the measure. Effect is an indicator of how much a measure could influence the purchase or investment decision for a given alternative fuelled vehicle or refuelling/recharging point. In the analysis, each measure is assigned one of the following scores: low, medium or high. Financial and nonfinancial measures are considered in the assessment. The overall measure comprehensiveness is assessed by fuel and mode. Comprehensiveness indicates by how much the totality of measures for a given fuel and mode addresses various deployment barriers. The score for comprehensiveness is binary: comprehensive/not comprehensive.

·measures to encourage and facilitate the deployment of recharging points not accessible to the public.

·measures necessary to ensure that the national targets and the objectives contained in the NPF are reached,

A key aspect of the Directive is that the Member States are asked to plan and adopt measures to support the achievement of the targets and objectives of their NPF. The Directive explicitly refers to measures targeting three different aspects:

In this assessment step, it is also captured if and how a Member State has undertaken the designation of densely populated areas to be equipped with public recharging/refuelling points.

Coverage of inland ports with mobile or fix installations to enable the circulation on the TEN-T Core Network

At least every 150 km on TEN-T Core Network and one CNG refuelling point per estimated 600 CNG vehicles

One recharging point per estimated ten electric vehicles (and for information purposes: at least every 60 km on TEN-T Core Network)

The requirements, as documented in the table below, were used to assess the sufficiency of the infrastructure targets as established in the NPF.

The quantitative assessment of the NPFs analyses if the NPF of a given Member State has established infrastructure targets that meet minimum requirements in terms of coverage and/or their relation to estimated future alternative fuelled vehicles. It also analyses if the existing or planned support actions or measures seem sufficient and are coherent with the vehicle estimates and infrastructure targets.

The qualitative assessment of the NPFs covers the completeness of the NPFs vis-à-vis the requirements of the Directive. For this purpose, a checklist was used (see table 1-1). The checklist summarizes the information if the NPF of a given Member State covers all elements as requested in article 3 of the Directive.

The methodology for the assessment of the National Policy Frameworks (NPFs) is organised in two work streams, a qualitative assessment that checks if the NPF covers all elements as regulated by the Directive and a quantitative assessment that evaluates if a given Member State (MS), through its targets and existing or planned measures, sufficiently supports the aim of the Directive to achieve a minimum level of alternative fuels infrastructure across the EU and cross-border continuity. The following sub-sections explain the methods employed.

Towards the broadest use of alternative fuels - an Action Plan for Alternative Fuels Infrastructure under Article 10(6) of Directive 201/94/EU, including the assessment of national policy frameworks under Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/94/EU

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

The checklist shows that the majority of the requirements of the Directive are covered. The Czech NPF does not contain targets for LNG refuelling at inland ports.

Checklist to assess whether all requirements to be addressed in the NPF are fulfilled

Table with the national targets and objectives established for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure at the horizon 2020, 2025 and 2030

The majority of measures in the Czech NPF are proposed for the future. Many of them are legislative, regulatory, or administrative measures, necessary for the transposition of the Directive. The number of proposed measures is high and is covering almost all areas, the future measures being presented in a well-structured and logical manner. However, while many measures are considered and several could have a tangible impact on the deployment of alternative fuels and its infrastructure, only few are in effect or adopted.

Through the TEN-T inland waterways network, the Czech Republic is connected with Germany through the Orient/East - Mediterranean Corridor.

At the end of 2014, according to the Czech NPF, the Czech Republic had 4,893,562 registered passenger cars and 6,996,674 registered road vehicles of all types (motorcycles, passenger cars, microbuses and buses, goods vehicles, tractor units, trailers and semi-trailers and special vehicles). The present situation of less than 0.2% of AFV is regarded by the Czech Republic as insufficient and in need of improvement.

Through the TEN-T Road Corridors, the Czech Republic is connected with the following Member States: - Austria (through the Baltic - Adriatic and the Orient/East - Mediterranean Corridor) - Poland (through the Baltic - Adriatic Corridor) - Germany (through the Orient/East Mediterranean Corridor and the Rhine - Danube Corridor) - Slovakia (through the Orient/East Mediterranean Corridor and the Rhine - Danube Corridor)

The following lengths of TEN-T Road Corridors are present in the Czech Republic: 6% (230 km) of the Baltic - Adriatic Corridor, 9% (473 km) of the Orient/East - Mediterranean Corridor and 11 % (495 km) of the Rhine - Danube Corridor.

The length of the road TEN-T Core Network in the Czech Republic is 1,017 km and the length of motorways is 776 km. The length of the total road network in the Czech Republic is 55,762 km.

Regarding the cooperation with other Member States, the NPF states that Cyprus cooperates with Greece and Italy in the frame of the EU funded POSEIDON-MED ΙΙ LNG project. A study regarding the future deployment and placement of LNG refuelling infrastructure at Cypriot ports will be carried out within this project.

The Cyprus NPF contains a medium size portfolio of support measures, many being currently discussed and planned and receiving in consequence the status ‘under consideration’. The majority of the proposed measures necessary to ensure national targets concern electricity for road transport, this cluster that contains 7 assessable measures received a medium assessment score. The use of alternative fuels for public transport activity is too vaguely addressed and additional concrete details would have been desirable.

The Cyprus NPF does not contain any targets for hydrogen in transport.

Besides electro-mobility, the national strategy for the other alternative fuels is briefly or inadequately treated in the Cyprus NPF, being dependent on the results of currently on-going studies. For CNG and LNG fuels, the NPF contains neither future estimates for vehicles nor targets for refuelling infrastructure. The lack of ambition for natural gas can be partially explained by the small market size in Cyprus and the lack of interconnections with other natural gas networks. However, the Cypriot NPF declares intentions to foster LNG use in maritime transport, also in cooperation with Greece and Italy

In the case of electricity for road transport, which constitutes the focus of the Cyprus NPF, the requirements of the Directive were fulfilled and details were given about the targeted recharging infrastructure for 2020 in terms of number and placement. Even though the future estimates of electric vehicle stock are rather modest, being situated in the range of 0.02% to 0.32% of the future vehicle stock, the proposed set of measures can support reaching the declared objectives since it was evaluated as being comprehensive and having a medium assessment score. In the case of electricity supply at airports and shore-side supply in its maritime ports, the Cypriot authorities are currently examining the situation and studies are carried out. The decision of setting targets and support measures are foreseen for the future.

From the Cyprus NPF, it is transparent that alternative fuels are at an early deployment stage in Cyprus. The Cyprus NPF addresses only a small part of the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive, mainly electro-mobility. For the future development and further penetration of alternative fuels in transport, a study entitled ‘Technical Assistance in order to assess and formulate recommendations for the promotion and penetration of alternative fuels in the transport sector’ has been commissioned. The purpose of the ongoing study is to present a comprehensive proposal regarding future penetration scenarios for various alternative fuels in the transport sector in Cyprus, as well as promotion policies and measures, taking account of the specific characteristics of Cyprus, to achieve the climate and energy targets related to the transport sector.

In the frame of the European POSEIDON-MED ΙΙ LNG Bunkering project, Cyprus cooperates with Greece and Italy. Within this project, a study will be carried out regarding the future deployment and placement of LNG refuelling infrastructure at Cypriot ports.

The NPF mentions different ministries and entities will work on defining the future measures. In the case of electricity supply at the airports, the Cyprus NPF states the views of the managing company Hermes Airports Ltd. and the Concessions Coordination Committee will be considered. The introduction of policy measures in the local plans of large cities will be examined.

5.4.6Assessment of the provided evidence whether the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned has been considered

The NPF presents one legislative type measure about the mandatory installation of an electricity supply system with an output of up to 3.7 KW in each parking space, for new buildings or buildings undergoing large-scale renovation, with at least two residential units, for potential future recharging of electric vehicles. This measure received the status ‘under consideration’ and it will be carried out in consultation with the competent building authorities and all interested and affected parties, decisions on the action to be taken will be made by the end of 2018.

The Cyprus NPF does not offer clear information in this area, but it states that different policy measures, including measures related to public transport, may be examined on the basis of the results of the on-going studies mentioned above.

The vehicle registration tax and the annual circulation tax currently in place in Cyprus are based on CO2 emissions which could also contribute to the deployment of AFV in the country.

The NPF states also that the energy policy regulates the blending shares of biofuel in conventional fuels (especially diesel), a threshold of at least 2.4% energy content being mentioned.

The Cyprus NPF contains 15 measures ensuring national targets and objectives. Eight of them are of regulatory or administrative type and 7 are of financial or nonfinancial type being eligible for assessment. All these 7 assessable measures regard the electricity for road transport, 6 having a low assessment score due to their status and lack of information about effectiveness and only one having a medium assessment score. Overall, this cluster is considered comprehensive and having a medium assessment score.

The Cyprus NPF has presented a medium number (16) of support measures, most of them being vaguely defined. The lack of concrete information (for example budget ceiling) for the 8 assessable ones makes their assessment difficult. The majority of measures have the status ‘under consideration’ and therefore receive a low assessment score.

The NPF provides the current number of LPG vehicles stating that the legislative framework for the implementation of LPG use in vehicles has been completed and more than 20 applications for planning authorisation for LPG refuelling points have been submitted. According to the NPF, the use of LPG as road transport fuel will be possible from 2017 onwards.

The Cyprus NPF doesn’t indicate future estimates for alternative fuels vehicles and vessels, except a very wide range of values concerning electric vehicles in 2020. These estimates represent a quite modest future share of electric vehicles in 2020, in the interval 0.02% and 0.32%.

The Cyprus NPF states that, at the present stage, there has been no decision on the use of hydrogen in transport.

Hydrogen refuelling points on networks determined by Member States having decided to include hydrogen refuelling points accessible to the public in their National Policy Framework (2025)

The degree of sufficiency for CNG AFI is not possible to be calculated due to the lack of data provided in the NPF.

Currently, natural gas (LNG and CNG) is not used in the Cypriot transport sector, since there is no natural gas (NG) market in Cyprus due to its geographical isolation, the small market size and the lack of interconnections with other NG networks.

The NPF states this matter is currently under assessment by the Cyprus Ports Authority that participates in the Elemed project, which relates to a study on the provision of shore-side electricity for ships moored in Cypriot ports that are part of the TEN-T Core Network.

Shore-side electricity supply for inland waterways vessels and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports of the TEN-T Core Network and in other ports (2025)

The NPF mentions the Department of Civil Aviation intends to examine the possibility of installing electricity supply for stationary airplanes at the airports of Larnaca and Paphos in the end of 2017. Cost-benefit studies and the views of the managing company Hermes Airports Ltd. and the Concessions Coordination Committee will be considered.

On this matter, the Cypriot NPF contains sufficient information. Four municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants (Nicosia, Strovolos, Limassol and Larnaca), 7 municipalities with more than 2,000 inhabitants and 3 communities with more than 250 inhabitants are designated in the NPF for equipment with electric recharging points (25 normal power and 2 high power).

The current sufficiency index IS for electricity infrastructure is 2.08 meeting the assessment threshold by a large margin but the value of the index for 2020 depends on the scenario for the number of electric vehicles. The large range of provided values makes the assessment difficult. The exact spatial distribution is not presented in the NPF but details are provided regarding the number and maximum distance in between the planned recharging points along the road segments of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Network for 2020. The distance requirement of one recharging point at least every 60 km is fulfilled since the declared maximum distances between points are lower than 55 km.

The checklist shows that the requirements of the Directive are to a large extent not covered.

Checklist to assess whether all requirements to be addressed in the NPF are fulfilled

The NPF mentions the current use of fuels in Cyprus being: 57% petrol, 41.5% diesel and 1.5% biodiesel.

Legend: AFV = Number of Alternative Fuels Vehicles, AFI = Number of Public Alternative Fuels Recharging/Refuelling Points. Besides electricity, not enough data are provided concerning the other alternative fuels current or future vehicle and infrastructure situation. The NPF mentions that plans, measures and programmes for these alternative fuels will be decided based on the results of studies that are still ongoing.

Table with the national targets and objectives established for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure at the horizon 2020, 2025 and 2030

The NPF contains the description of 16 support measures. The Cyprus NPF has as main objective the introduction of electricity in road transport, the set of corresponding measures being assessed as comprehensive with a medium score.

The NPF mentions that, for the future development and further penetration of alternative fuels in transport, a study entitled “Technical Assistance in order to assess and formulate recommendations for the promotion and penetration of alternative fuels in the transport sector” conducted by the German organisation Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH is currently being carried out. The results of this study will be used to identify the most efficient scenario for promoting the use of alternative fuels in transport, initially by 2020 and by 2030 at a later stage, taking account of the impact on other sectors, such as electricity, and on environment. New plans, measures and programmes for other alternative fuels and necessary infrastructure on the basis of the results of the study will be decided at a later stage.

In 2015, Cyprus had 472,692 registered passenger cars and 653,774 registered road vehicles of all types. Presently only very few (< 0.05%) AFV are driving on Cypriot roads.

The length of the TEN-T Road Corridors present in Cyprus is 3% (138 km) of the Orient / East Mediterranean Corridor.

The length of the road TEN-T Core Network in Cyprus is 156 km and the length of motorways is 257 km. The length of the total road network in Cyprus is 4,767 km.

The Republic of Bulgaria, in its NPF, declares interest to cooperate with the neighbouring countries to ensure EU-wide circulation of vehicles and vessels, especially for natural gas. It may be advisable to extend this cooperation also for the other fuels and modes.

The Bulgarian NPF is based on a well-defined legislative framework and on investment support that to some extent relies on European Union co-funding instruments and Cohesion Funds. The NPF contains large number of possible initiatives with support measures to enhance the deployment of electro-mobility, hydrogen and natural gas vehicles and alternative fuels infrastructure, also for public transport. All these measures, if implemented, could help overcome deployment barriers. Since most of these measures are still only under consideration, there is a certain risk that the national targets and objectives of the NPF may not be reached.

Bulgaria considers hydrogen technologies as a way of integrating renewable energy sources in transport and has included hydrogen in its NPF. The NPF estimates the share of hydrogen vehicles to be around 0.01% by 2025 in Bulgaria.

The Bulgarian NPF contains some targets for LNG bunkering infrastructure for inland and seagoing vessels. Building of the bunkering infrastructure is to a certain extent dependent on the availability of European funds.

It has a target of 4 LNG refuelling points for heavy-duty vehicles, which is insufficient to ensure appropriate coverage of the TEN-T Core Network on Bulgarian territory.

Bulgaria has already today a relatively dense network of CNG refuelling points in parts of the country and the NPF foresees that this will further grow to cover the complete Bulgarian territory and the Bulgarian part of the TEN-T Corridors. The Bulgarian NPF does not contain future estimates for the number of CNG vehicles.

The Bulgarian NPF recognises that electrification of the propulsion of vehicles could contribute to the development of environmentally friendly road transport in Bulgaria however in a long term perspective. Bulgaria expects a rather rapid deployment of electric vehicles, mainly PHEV. It estimates the share of EV in Bulgaria to be roughly 1% by 2020. For electric recharging infrastructure, the current situation, with 22 publicly accessible recharging points, is sufficient. The Bulgarian targets for the recharging network in 2020, 2025 and 2030 might not be enough if the estimates for electric vehicles in Bulgaria are met. It may be important to closely monitor this development and correct infrastructure targets in line with the market developments. The NPF does not contain concrete targets to increase the availability of electricity supply for stationary airplanes. For shore-side electricity it focuses on plans for modernising the existing infrastructure.

The Bulgarian NPF addresses only part of the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive. It contains an extensive discussion of the current state and future scenarios for alternative fuels in the transport sector. However, the NPF does not contain any designation of urban/suburban agglomerations to be equipped with recharging points and with CNG refuelling points. In the Bulgarian NPF, the number of refuelling points for CNG and for LNG to be put in place along the TEN-T Core Network is not defined. Bulgaria intends to develop an alternative fuels infrastructure network that it is considerate of the Bulgarian economic conditions with lower initial investments and minimised risks in the first years.

Coordination is mentioned in the Bulgarian NPF in the case of the planning of a hydrogen maritime ferry line linking Constanta (Romania) with Varna and Burgas in Bulgaria and with Istanbul (Turkey). Regarding NG refuelling points, cooperation is foreseen with candidate countries (Serbia) and along the TEN-T through the Connecting Europe Facility. It can be concluded that for these fuels Bulgaria shows intentions to cooperate with the neighbouring countries to ensure EU-wide circulation.

Bulgaria cooperates with Romania through the INTERREG V-A cross border cooperation programme (2014-2020), which finances activities under different priority axes. One requirement for eligibility of proposals is that it must contribute to the development of refuelling infrastructure for alternative fuels.

The Bulgarian NPF does not explicitly mention consultation with regional and local authorities. It seems that the interests of the stakeholders concerned have been taken into account, at least for the deployment of electric vehicles and recharging infrastructure for which the proposals of the Electric Vehicles Industrial Cluster and the Bulgarian Electric Vehicles Association are presented in the NPF. The Bulgarian NPF recognises the need of involving industrial associations and municipalities for deployment of hydrogen vehicles and refuelling infrastructure and the benefit of public-private partnerships to help creating a market and demand of CNG.

5.3.6Assessment of the provided evidence whether the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned has been considered

From the Bulgarian NPF it is unclear if measures are defined to encourage and facilitate the deployment of recharging points not accessible to the public (private electro-mobility infrastructure). The NPF just mentions a project that envisages the construction of recharging infrastructure and the provision of electric vehicles for shared use by occupants of residential building with an indicative budget of approximately 150 k€ per location; although it is not clear whether the budget comes from public, private or public-private shared funds.

In addition, Bulgaria has put in place two regulatory measures concerning public transport: the most relevant is the Energy from Renewable Sources Act and the National Action Plan for Energy Sources that lays down the commitments and responsibilities for municipalities that should consider biofuel and energy from renewable sources in transport services within their area of responsibility. The second one refers to the requirement of electric (PHEV and BEV) taxis to be painted in green.

The Bulgarian NPF contains 6 measures in this category, covering AFI and AFV, all fuel types and mainly road transport. Two measures relate to public procurement: e.g. pilot projects for the use of electric buses in the city of Sofia and the use of Jessica funds for urban transport and infrastructure. Similarly, funds from the EU Regional Policy Bulgarian Operational Programmes "Environment" and "Regions in Growth" could be used in projects to respectively reduce pollution of public transport and to build refuelling and recharging infrastructure that would serve public transport services. Due to their low status (projects under consideration) and due to a lack of financial information, these measures were assessed as having a low score.

Bulgaria plans to co-finance projects for building infrastructure for compressed and liquefied natural gas along the transport corridors of TEN-T Network making use of Cohesion Funds, in particular through the Connecting Europe Facility as well as through funds under cross-border cooperation programmes (INTERREG) with other Member States. The achievement of Bulgarian targets is therefore linked to the availability of European funds to finance CEF, Regional development and RD&D programmes.

To support achievement of its targets and objectives Bulgaria relies on European Commission policies for regional development, in particular the Operational Programmes "Environment", "Rural Development", "Competitiveness and Innovation", and "Science and Education for Smart Growth", Structural Funds, the European financial instrument JESSICA. Moreover, Bulgarian organisations participate in many EU funded RD&D actions.

From the Bulgarian NPF it is not clear whether measures to encourage and facilitate the deployment of recharging points not accessible to the public (private electro-mobility infrastructure) are in place or will be taken in the future. In the NPF, it is proposed to encourage the installation of recharging infrastructure through direct investment, fiscal incentives and administrative facilitation measures. The scope and content of such measures (result of the correspondent impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis) it is not yet specified.

Lower excises duties than for petrol or diesel are applied to CNG and LPG, and biofuels are exempt from excise duties. There is at present a considerable number of CNG and LPG propelled vehicles on the Bulgarian roads. However, from the data presented in the NPF it does not seem that, in the future, these measures will have a sustained impact on the market of those AFV or increase the use of biofuels.

Support measures in support to the deployment of AFV, contained in the Bulgarian NPF, comprise tax incentives for electric and for CNG vehicles. Also free parking in" blue zones" for electric vehicles is granted in several Bulgarian cities. However these measures do not significantly influence the AFV total cost of ownership and there is risk that these measures might not be sufficient to ensure attainment of the targets and objectives of the NPF.

The Bulgarian NPF contains a total of 29 measures; however, many are just targeting transposition provisions of the Directive outside the scope of Article 3 or are very vaguely defined. 25 measures are in effect and 4 under consideration. This, according to the assessment methodology, leads to low overall assessment scores for most of the fuels, modes and measure types addressed. In some cases, the lack of concrete information (for example budget) makes it difficult to assess the scope according to the same methodology.

LPG is broadly used in Bulgaria in road transport with currently a 3.74% share of LPG fuelled cars of the total number of cars. The NPF does not contain any future projections of the market development for LPG vehicles nor infrastructure.

Although no targets have been set for LNG heavy-duty vehicles, the Bulgarian NPF says that in the period 2020-2025 it would be necessary to support investments in a fleet of HDV and buses running on LNG.

The NPF declares that: "at present the natural gas vehicle market in Bulgaria is relatively well developed but the trends for its future are unfavourable". With more than 2% CNG vehicles on its roads, Bulgaria is among the Member States with the highest share of natural gas vehicles. Nevertheless, the NPF states that, in practice, the CNG market is in standstill and there is no new demand due to both the lack of offer of CNG models and the disadvantageous price of CNG compared to LPG fuel.

The NPF considers that: "development of electro-mobility in Bulgaria should not be perceived in terms of electricity quickly replacing conventional transport fuels. Rather it is to be seen as an evolutionary process in which various fuels, including alternative ones, will be used in different market segments, complementing rather than competing with one another". Attention should currently focus on hybrid vehicles (that could provide sufficient range, leveraging the existing conventional fuels distribution network), also taking into account that the price of such vehicles is lower than those powered solely by electricity or hydrogen. Accordingly, Bulgaria estimates a share of 1% electric vehicles in 2020, 2% in 2025 and 4.3% in 2030, consisting of PHEV with an electric range of at least 40 km. For hydrogen vehicles, the ambition level is lower (estimate of 400 vehicles in 2025 that will represent 0.01% and 900 vehicles in 2030 accounting for a 0.028%).

The key principle underlying the Bulgarian NPF is the technological neutrality in the sense that the public sector should not support only one type of alternative fuels. The implementation of the national policy will be done, on the other hand, with those technologies that are at the threshold of commercial use and for which the active policy of the state would bring the greatest added value (according to the NPF: electro-mobility and natural gas) as well as with technologies that are currently at the stage of testing/pilot projects but which could still benefit from the governmental support in the short run at least until the stage of semi-commercial use (hydrogen/fuel cell) is reached. In the Bulgarian NPF estimates for deployment of alternative fuels vehicles are only provided for electric and for hydrogen fuel cell cars.

There are plans to establish at the port of Burgas a hub for cruise ships and to introduce fuel cell powered ships in the nature conservation areas in the region. An association has been formed for the implementation of this plan by Delphin Varna Shipping, Municipality Burgas, Institute of Electrochemistry and Energy Systems — Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute for Regional Strategies – Burgas. Furthermore, there is the idea of constructing a hydrogen maritime ferry line linking Constanţa (Romania) with Varna and Burgas in Bulgaria and with Istanbul (Turkey).

Bulgaria will explore the possibilities to establish a national network of hydrogen refuelling points based on various mobility scenarios. The aim is to develop a strategy that is the most adequate to the Bulgarian economic conditions. The building of the first hydrogen refuelling point at the port of Burgas is at initial stage, other locations (Sofia, Stara, Zagora, Ruse) will be considered in the long term. The forecast of the Bulgarian Academy of Science is at least one point in operation and one point under construction after 2020 and four refuelling points in operation by 2030. The Bulgarian Electric Vehicle Industrial Cluster ( http://www.emic-bg.org ) considers a more optimistic scenario with four points by 2020, ten by 2025 and 50 by 2030. The NPF declares that the required infrastructure will be established in Bulgaria with a targeted distance between hydrogen refuelling points of about 200 km.

Bulgaria considers hydrogen as a way of integrating renewable energy sources in transport and has included hydrogen in its NPF. Three potential applications have been identified: fuel cell fork-lift trucks, water transport, and road transport.

Hydrogen refuelling points on networks determined by Member States having decided to include hydrogen refuelling points accessible to the public in their National Policy Framework (2025)

At present no LNG refuelling infrastructure is in place on the premises of Bulgarian inland ports. Within the LNG Masterplan Rhine-Main-Danube ( http://www.lngmasterplan.eu/ ) a terminal has been built in the Port of Ruse, although it is not yet operative. The Bulgarian NPF just declares that "the required LNG refuelling points in Bulgarian inland ports are to be built by 31 December 2030". The NPF sets as priority the ports of Ruse and Vidin in the TEN-T Core and possibly Lom, Oryahavo, Silistra, Svishtov in the Comprehensive Network. However, the decision on locations and deadlines for construction still depends on a study of the market needs and a cost-benefit analysis to be prepared.

At present, no LNG refuelling infrastructure is in place on the premises of the Bulgarian maritime ports. In the NPF it is just affirmed that "the required LNG refuelling points is Bulgarian maritime ports are to be built by 31 December 2025". The NPF sets as priority the port of Burgas in the TEN-T Core and possibly Varna in the Comprehensive Network, however the decision on locations and deadlines for construction still depends on a study of the market needs and cost-benefit analysis to be prepared.

The NPF declares that "it is imperative to study the regional and national demand for liquefied natural gas for the needs of road transport before proceeding with the construction of refuelling points". It does not contain targets for LNG refuelling points along the TEN-T Core Network. However the Bulgarian NPF affirms that, during the period 2020 to 2025, a greater focus will be placed on developing the CNG/LNG infrastructure on the motorway network (including TEN-T) and that in the period 2025-2030 the activities should be aimed at increasing the density of the distribution network for LNG and at promoting new technologies in the field of transport with alternative fuels.

There is one LNG refuelling point in the Port of Ruse terminal, which was recently opened in the frame of the LNG Masterplan Rhine-Main-Danube ( http://www.lngmasterplan.eu/ ). The LNG terminal, part of a pilot project, is equipped with a truck refuelling point and a pontoon to be used for future refuelling of inland vessels as well as combined LNG/CNG refuelling points for trucks. Other terminals will be built in Sofia and Plovdiv over the next 3 years.

The Bulgarian NPF does not contain any designation of urban/suburban agglomerations to be equipped with CNG refuelling points. The distribution of the CNG refuelling points is relatively evenly through Bulgaria, with lower level of density in North-western Bulgaria and the Rila-Rhodope region. The NPF declares that in the period 2020-2025 emphasis should be placed on building CNG infrastructure in those areas.

The NPF recognises that the number of CNG refuelling points is insufficient along the TEN-T Corridors on the territory of Bulgaria and establishes as priority building infrastructure for CNG and LNG along the transport corridors of the TEN-T Network in Bulgaria by 2020.

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of CNG refuelling points presented in the map at http://cngeurope.com/countries/bulgaria/ , it seems that the distance requirement of one CNG refuelling point at least every 150 km is fulfilled in most parts of the country, however not across the entire Bulgarian territory and not along the TEN-T Core Network.

The Bulgarian NPF does not contain targets for CNG refuelling points. The currently available 110 public CNG refuelling points leads to a sufficiency index value of 770 and does not meet the sufficiency threshold of at least one refuelling point per 600 CNG vehicles.

The Bulgarian NPF acknowledges that "seeing that many of the Bulgarian ports have installations for the supply of shore-side electricity, the needs for modernisation of such installation should be investigated with regard to the possibilities for simultaneous supply of all vessels in the ports and the required power both total and at each point depending on the needs, the type and the size of the ships visiting the ports. As a result of this study the priorities for repair and construction of points should be identified, and the construction of the required equipment should be effected in compliance with the relevant standards. These technical requirements and standards should be reflected in the Bulgarian legislation". Accordingly the installations for shore-side supply of electricity to maritime transport, deployed or renewed after 18 November 2017, must comply with the technical specifications stipulated in Article 4(6) of the Directive.

There are 13 inland ports and port terminals (of national and regional importance) in which shore-side electricity supply is available. Ruse and Vidin of the TEN-T Core Network and the 4 ports and terminals of the TEN-T Comprehensive Network provide shore-side electricity.

The Bulgarian maritime ports and port terminals where ships are supplied with electricity have even geographical distribution. There are 7 maritime ports and port terminals (of national and regional importance) that provide shore-side electricity; among them Burgas port at the TEN-T Core Network and Varna at the Comprehensive Network.

In Bulgaria, shore-side electricity supply is a technical service provided at public ports by the port operators. The capability to provide this service is part of the "certificate of fitness for operation" issued to the port.

Shore-side electricity supply for inland waterways vessels and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports of the TEN-T Core Network and in other ports (2025)

Sofia's airport in the TEN-T Core Network provides power supply and pre-conditioned air from stationary facilities installed at the aprons of Terminal 2. Terminal 1 supplies electricity from Mobile Ground Power Units but without pre-conditioned air. Other airports in the TEN-T Comprehensive Network (Burgas, Gorna Orjahovitsa, Plovdiv, Varna) neither provide fixed electrical ground power nor pre-conditioned air system. At present, no analysis has been made at national level to assess the necessity and economic justification of stationary facilities.

The Bulgarian NPF does not contain any designation of urban/suburban agglomerations to be equipped with recharging points.

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of recharging points available at the Bulcharge platform ( www.bulcharge.com ) and checking the routes of the TEN-T Core Network, the distance requirement of one recharging point at least every 60 km is not fulfilled. The NPF considers that it is necessary to plan the potential places for installing recharging points adopting a rule that ensures points to be located at a distance no more than 100 km from another along the major roads. Hence, there is the risk that the distance between recharging points may be too large, possibly leading to range anxiety for BEV drivers.

Table 5.3-3 shows the values of the sufficiency index IS = Number of AFV / Number of AF Recharging/Refuelling points. The Bulgarian NPF provides targets for the recharging network in 2020, 2025 and 2030. For 2020, the value 14 of the index is above the threshold of 10 AFV per recharging point and suggests that the targeted number of recharging points may be insufficient and this situation will be maintained in 2025 and 2030.

The Bulgarian NPF does not contain any designation of urban/suburban agglomerations to be equipped with CNG refuelling points. In the Bulgarian NPF, the number of refuelling points for CNG and for LNG to be put in place along the TEN-T Core Network is not defined. The NPF just mentions that priority will be given for the construction of NG refuelling points along the TEN-T Corridors. Moreover, the NPF does not contain targets for LNG refuelling points at maritime and inland ports.

Regarding the deployment of an appropriate network of electric recharging points the Bulgarian NPF does not contain any designation of urban/suburban agglomerations to be equipped with recharging points. Moreover it is not clear if measures are defined to promote the development of private recharging infrastructure in Bulgaria.

The checklist shows that the requirements of the Directive are only partly covered.

Checklist to assess whether all requirements to be addressed in the NPF are fulfilled

Table with the national targets and objectives established for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure at the horizon 2020, 2025 and 2030

The NPF describes, in a well-structured and logical manner, a large number of possible measures to enhance the deployment of electro-mobility, hydrogen and natural gas vehicles and infrastructure. However, many of these measures will only be considered after stakeholder consultation, impact assessments, and cost-benefit analyses.

The Bulgarian long-term goal (after 2030) is to deploy electro-mobility, to use natural gas widely as standard fuel and to start deployment of hydrogen for transport. Accordingly, Bulgaria has put in place a corresponding legislative framework to support the use of alternative fuels. The majority of measures described in the Bulgarian NPF are legislative, regulatory, or administrative measures, necessary for the transposition of the Directive. Bulgaria makes use of European financial instruments (JESSICA and Regional Development Fund), as well as EC Regional Policy Operational Programmes and cross-border cooperation via the INTERREG programme in order to achieve conditions comparable to those MS that are more advanced in the deployment of alternative fuels and their infrastructure. Bulgarian organisations participates in many EU funded RD&D actions.

In 2016, Bulgaria had 3,661,849 registered passenger cars in traffic use, out of which, 3,013,863 registered passenger cars. Presently around 6% AFV are driving on Bulgarian roads, out of which 0.08% of passenger cars are electric.

Through the TEN-T Road Corridors, Bulgaria is connected with Romania and Greece through the Orient / East Mediterranean Corridor.

The length of the TEN-T Road Corridors present in Bulgaria is 18% (960 km) of the Orient / East Mediterranean Corridor.

The length of the road TEN-T Core Network in Bulgaria is 1,507 km and the length of motorways is 605 km. The length of the total road network in Bulgaria is 7,615 km.

Belgium is actively involved in coordinating its plans on alternative fuels infrastructure with the Benelux countries and is collaborating with them in this field. It may be advisable to extend this cooperation effort also towards other neighbouring countries such as France and Germany.

The consideration of the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as stakeholders during the drafting of the Belgian NPF is evident throughout the text of the NPF.

The Belgian NPF contains a comprehensive list of measures, most already in place and foreseen to stay. Most of them can be considered having a medium impact on market actor's decisions, especially for electric and CNG cars as well as electrification of public transport. The measures listed in the Belgian NPF differ for the three different regions (Flemish Region, Walloon Region, and Brussels Capital Region). A number of measures are defined at the federal level and apply for all three regions. The level of support varies greatly across the three regions. This could lead to a certain market fragmentation within the country.

The Belgian NPF displays a strong commitment towards hydrogen. The deployment of 19 publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling points in addition to the three existing is planned.

LNG refuelling is planned for all maritime ports in the TEN-T Core Network and several inland ports. Furthermore, at least 2 LNG refuelling points for heavy-duty vehicles are targeted in the ports of Antwerp and Oostende. According to the results of a sector survey, that is mentioned in the NPF, these targets could be significantly exceeded. Altogether, the planned LNG refuelling points could guarantee that the maximum distance requirement for LNG refuelling points along the TEN-T Core Network would be fulfilled on Belgian territory.

The Belgian NPF sees a growing role for CNG cars. It contains modest estimates for the further evolution of CNG cars, with an estimated share of 0.6% on the road in 2020. Belgium has today a sufficient network of public recharging and CNG refuelling points.

The Belgian NPF puts a lot of emphasis on electric cars. It contains high estimates for the future deployment of EV with an estimated roughly 1.3% electric vehicles on the road in 2020. Today, the spatial distribution of recharging points seems to appropriately cover the needs of electric vehicles in terms of distance requirements in Belgium. For the future, the targeted ratio of less than one public recharging point per 10 electric vehicles estimated for 2020 could evolve to become a barrier for the further market deployment of electric vehicles, especially in the Walloon and Brussels-Capital Region. This could also lead to market fragmentation within the EU. It will be important to closely monitor this development and correct infrastructure targets in line with the market developments. Belgium has also defined ambitious targets for electric buses, especially in the Brussels-Capital Region. Other initiatives for electrifying public transport, such as taxi fleets and carpooling are presented in the Belgian NPF. Electric bikes as well as their infrastructure also receive support. The Belgian NPF contains targets for further increasing shore-side electricity in its ports but no plans to increase the electricity supply for stationary airplanes.

The Belgian NPF fully addresses the requirements of Article 3. It contains tables of the current state and future estimates for alternative fuels vehicles in the transport sector. For all fuels and modes, it establishes targets as required by Article 3 of the Directive.

Belgium has cooperated with other Member States through the Benelux regional cooperation. Other neighbouring Member States, such as France or Germany are not explicitly mentioned.

The Belgian NPF has been established respecting the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned. The NPF explicitly mentions an interdepartmental transversal government working group that coordinated the drafting of the NPF. A National Steering Group on electric vehicles, since 2011, involves stakeholders to make recommendations regarding the introduction of electro-mobility in Belgium. From 2010 to 2014, eight sessions were held in the context of the Belgian Platform for Electric Vehicles and Alternative Fuels to discuss about alternative fuels in Belgium.

5.2.6Assessment of the provided evidence whether the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned has been considered

The Belgian NPF contains measures in this category, amongst others financially supporting the investment costs of building privately accessible recharging points. Several of the measures for the promotion of deployment of private electro-mobility infrastructure are already in effect. In the Brussels-Capital Region, there is an obligation to foresee public and private recharging point installations at parking areas. The region considers widening the scope of this measure. The totality of measures that can promote the deployment of private electro-mobility infrastructure were assessed as having a medium score.

The Belgian NPF contains a very comprehensive set of measures in this category, covering mainly electric AFI and AFV. The measures cover buses, car sharing, park & ride, and electric taxis. Most measures for public road transport are already in effect. They were assessed as having a medium score.

From the alternative fuel and mode of transport clustering analysis, it resulted that most measures presented address electric vehicles, which is one important focus of the Belgian NPF. The new market share of EV in Belgium more than doubled from 2015 (0.76%) to 2016 (1.74%). This can possibly be attributed to the zero-emission purchase premium that was introduced in the Flemish region in 2016.

The measures of this category cover: AFI and AFV, several fuel types, modes of transport, financial and nonfinancial support. The totality of these measures can indeed address many of the deployment barriers and, as a consequence, the portfolio of all measures can be considered quite comprehensive. Since many of the measures already exist and receive a medium score at least for electric and CNG vehicles, it can be derived that the Belgian NPF seems to have defined appropriate measures in order to attain the defined targets and objectives of the NPF. The different levels of support in the three Belgian regions could lead to a certain market fragmentation within the country.

The Belgian NPF contains a portfolio of different measures. Most of the measures are already in effect. They vary a lot by region. The Walloon Region has identified only few support measures. For the entirety of the Belgian NPF, according to the assessment methodology, a medium overall assessment score is derived for electric and CNG vehicles as well as alternative fuels in public transport services. For the Brussels-Capital Region, electric bicycle deployment is also supported. For the other fuels and modes, the assessment score is low. In some cases, the lack of concrete information (for example budget ceiling) makes it difficult to assess the scope according to the same methodology.

A main focus of the Belgian NPF is on electric and CNG cars. It estimates a share of roughly 1.5% electric cars and 0.8% CNG cars on the road in 2020. The Belgian NPF does not contain any estimates beyond 2020. For any of the other alternative fuels or transport modes the Belgian NPF does not specify any future estimates for alternative fuels and vessels.

A target of 22 hydrogen refuelling points is established for 2020, the majority (20) are foreseen in the Flemish Region. Currently, one public hydrogen refuelling point is in operation at Zaventem near Brussels. For the future deployment, coordination will be sought with the Benelux countries to ensure besides appropriate coverage of urban/suburban agglomerations also an appropriate hydrogen infrastructure along the TEN-T Corridors.

Hydrogen refuelling points on networks determined by Member States having decided to include hydrogen refuelling points accessible to the public in their National Policy Framework (2025)

LNG refuelling points are planned for several Belgian inland ports. Currently, nothing is planned for the ports of Liege and Namur.

LNG refuelling is foreseen for all Belgian maritime ports of the TEN-T Core Network by 2025. Truck-to-Ship bunkering is already available today in several ports.

At country level, a target of 14 LNG refuelling points is mentioned as the result of a sector survey. Only the location of two of the LNG refuelling points is indicated, the ports of Antwerp and Oostende. These two LNG refuelling points could ensure that the maximum distance requirement for LNG refuelling points along the TEN-T Core Network would be fulfilled on Belgian territory.

Although the Belgian NPF does not explicitly identify urban/suburban agglomerations for CNG infrastructure coverage, it can be assumed that the deployment of the targeted CNG refuelling points should ensure appropriate coverage.

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of CNG refuelling points presented in the provided map and checking the routes of the TEN-T Core Network, it seems that the distance requirement of one CNG refuelling point at least every 150 km is fulfilled, already today, except for the A4 motorway which is part of the North Sea / Mediterranean Corridor. However, the number of planned CNG refuelling points gives confidence that the distance requirement should be met probably before 2025.

Table 5.2-3 shows that the currently available number of CNG refuelling points is sufficient to pass the threshold value of one CNG refuelling point per 600 vehicles. The NPF foresees a further increase of CNG refuelling points. The 2020 CNG infrastructure target clearly passes the sufficiency threshold value for the estimated CNG vehicles on Belgian roads in the same year.

The NPF mentions that Belgium already has a network of shore-side electricity supply. A further increase of shore-side electricity is planned in most of the ports of the TEN-T Core Network.

Shore-side electricity supply for inland waterways vessels and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports of the TEN-T Core Network and in other ports (2025)

Belgium's two airports in the TEN-T Core Network, Brussels and Liège, have according to the NPF, fixed ground power units and mobile ground power units. No plans are foreseen to increase these numbers.

The Belgian NPF contains maps with information on planned recharging point deployment. According to this information, it can be assumed that the urban/suburban agglomerations in Belgium will be well covered with publicly accessible recharging points, although the ratio between estimated EV and targeted recharging points may give rise to concerns (see previous sub-section).

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of recharging points presented in the provided maps, the distance calculations shown for the Walloon region, and checking the routes of the TEN-T Core Network, it seems that the distance requirement of one recharging point at least every 60 km will be fulfilled. The Belgian NPF does not contain targets for recharging infrastructure development beyond 2020.

Table 5.2-3 shows the values of the sufficiency index IS = Number of AFV / Number of AF Recharging/Refuelling points. Regarding the electric vehicles, for the current situation, according to the Belgian NPF, with 12.3, the index does not reach the assessment threshold of 10 AFV per recharging point. For 2020, the value 10.4 of the index suggests that the targeted number of recharging points in the Belgian NPF may be insufficient. This even more so as in 2020 the sufficiency threshold would largely be missed in the Walloon region (14.4) and Brussels Capital region (13.2). The Belgian NPF objectives for 2020 contain a network of 8,324 recharging points accessible to the public.

The checklist shows that all the requirements of the Directive are covered.

Checklist to assess whether all requirements to be addressed in the NPF are fulfilled

Table with the national targets and objectives established for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure at the horizon 2020, 2025 and 2030

The measures listed in the Belgium NPF differ for the three different regions (Flemish Region, Walloon Region, and Brussels Capital Region). A number of measures are defined at the federal level and apply for all three regions. The majority of measures in the Belgian NPF is already existing and foreseen to stay in place. They cover a wide variety of types, addressing many deployment barriers. The number of proposed measures is high and is covering various fuels and modes. The Flemish Region provides significant subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles; the Walloon Region has defined few measures, and the Brussels-Capital Region emphasises the role of public transport. The measures are presented in a well-structured and logical manner. The level of support varies greatly across the three regions. This could lead to very different deployment levels of alternative fuels throughout Belgium.

Through the TEN-T inland waterways network, Belgium is connected with France through the North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor, and with the Netherlands through the North Sea - Baltic and the North - Sea Mediterranean Corridor.

At the end of 2015, according to the Belgian NPF, Belgium had 5,661,742 registered passenger cars. In 2015, it had 6,396,720 registered road vehicles of all types (motorcycles, passenger cars, microbuses and buses, goods vehicles, tractor units, trailers and semi-trailers and special vehicles). The present situation of few AFV on Belgian roads, with approximately 0.16% AFV in the passenger car fleet, is regarded by Belgium as insufficient and in need of improvement.

Through the TEN-T Road Corridors, Belgium is connected with the following Member States: - Germany (through the North Sea - Baltic and the Rhine - Alpine Corridor) - Netherlands (through the North Sea - Baltic and the North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor) - Luxembourg (through the North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor) - France (through the North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor)

The following lengths of the TEN-T Road Corridors are present in Belgium: 5% (214 km) of the North Sea - Baltic Corridor, 18% (253 km) of the Rhine - Alpine Corridor and 12% (508 km) of the North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor.

The length of the road TEN-T Core Network in Belgium is 828 km and the length of motorways is 1,763 km. The length of the total road network in Belgium is 16,341 km.

Austria is actively involved in coordinating its plans on alternative fuels infrastructure with other Member States as well as collaborating with them in this field.

The consideration of the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as stakeholders during the drafting of the Austrian NPF can be considered exemplary. Further coordination is planned in order to ensure follow-up of the implementation actions, collaboration among authorities and advice from stakeholders.

The Austrian NPF contains a very comprehensive list of measures, most already in place and their prolongation foreseen. Most of them can be considered having a medium impact on market actor's decisions. Longer periods for their validity could provide certainty for market actors and hence increase the likelihood that the national targets and objectives of the NPF can be reached. The NPF contains a comprehensive list of support measures that can promote the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in public transport services.

Depending on market demand, 1-2 dual use LNG refuelling points for vessels and heavy-duty trucks are proposed in the NPF. If both LNG refuelling points were realised, this would guarantee that the maximum distance requirement for LNG refuelling points along the TEN-T Core Network would be fulfilled on Austrian territory.

Austria currently has a sufficient network of CNG refuelling points. However, the Austrian NPF displays a sceptical view on the future prospects of CNG vehicles and does not foresee additional investments in CNG refuelling infrastructure.

Today, the spatial distribution of recharging points and especially fast recharging infrastructure seems to appropriately cover the needs of electric vehicles in terms of distance requirements in Austria. For the future, the targeted ratio of only one public recharging point per 18-37 electric vehicles estimated for 2020 could evolve to become a barrier for the further market deployment of electric vehicles. This could also lead to market fragmentation within the EU. It will be important to closely monitor this development and correct infrastructure targets in line with the market developments.

The Austrian NPF puts a lot of emphasis on electric vehicles and contains, with more than 1.3% share by 2020, high estimates for the future deployment of EV, when compared with its current EV shares (0.3%). Austria has already today a relatively dense network of public recharging points. Eligibility for several support measures for EV is contingent on 100% renewable electricity contracts. This ensures zero emission electro-mobility also under a well-to-wheel perspective. Austria, already today, has a significant number of electric buses, some powered via overhead lines. Bicycles and electric bikes as well as their infrastructure also receive support. Regarding electricity supply for stationary airplanes, the Austrian NPF commits to maintaining the current infrastructure. For shore-side electricity the NPF mentions ongoing studies to study the possible extension of the basic existing network.

The Austrian NPF fully addresses the requirements of Article 3. It contains an extensive discussion of the current state and future scenarios for alternative fuels in the transport sector. For all fuels and modes, it establishes targets as required by Article 3 of the Directive.

Austria has cooperated with other member states through different fora. The NPF mentions a spring 2016 coordination meeting with Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy and Croatia; Austrian participation in the STF; and its participation in the Government support group on alternative fuels (led by NL, and DE).

The Austrian NPF has been established respecting the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned. The NPF explicitly mentions stakeholder consultation, workshops, and a public consultation that were carried out during its drafting. A coordination committee on "Clean energy in transport" will be set-up in order to ensure follow-up of the implementation actions, future coordination among authorities and advice from stakeholders.

5.1.6Assessment of the provided evidence whether the interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the stakeholders concerned has been considered

The Austrian NPF contains measures in this category, amongst others financially supporting the investment costs of building privately accessible recharging points. The measures for the promotion of deployment of private electro-mobility infrastructure are already in effect in several of the Austrian Bundesländer and prolongation is considered. They were assessed as having a medium score.

The Austrian NPF contains several measures in this category, covering AFI and AFV, all fuel types and two modes of transport (road and rail). The measures for public road transport are already in effect and prolongation is considered. They were assessed as having a medium score.

From the alternative fuel and mode of transport clustering analysis, it resulted that most measures presented address electric vehicles, which is one important focus of the Austrian NPF. A 2016 change in the rules for company car tax treatment triggered in 2016 a surge in battery electric vehicle registrations, which were mainly registered as company cars.

The measures of this category cover: AFI and AFV, several fuel types, modes of transport, financial and nonfinancial support. The totality of these measures can indeed address many of the deployment barriers and as a consequence the portfolio of all measures can be considered quite comprehensive. Since many of the measures are already existing and receive a medium score at least for electric vehicles, it can be derived that the Austrian NPF seems to have defined appropriate measures in order to attain the defined targets and objectives of the NPF. A large amount of support measures are only approved for one year at a time or a budget appropriation that is likely to be depleted within a given year. Although extension is foreseen for most of them, this could be perceived by market actors as a lack of predictability in terms of stability of support measures.

The Austrian NPF contains a big portfolio of measures. Most of the measures are already in effect, and their prolongation is considered. According to the assessment methodology, a medium overall assessment score is derived for electric and CNG vehicles as well as alternative fuels in public transport services. For many EV targeted support measures, the eligibility is linked to the use of 100% renewable electricity, a useful provision for ensuring zero WtW emissions. Bicycle and electric bicycle deployment are also supported. For the other fuels and modes, the assessment score is low. In some cases, the lack of concrete information (for example budget ceiling) makes it difficult to assess the scope according to the same methodology.

A main focus of the Austrian NPF is on electric vehicles. It estimates a share of roughly 1.3% - 3.7% electric vehicles on the road in 2020. Until 2030, this share is estimated to increase to levels between 20 and 35%. For any of the other alternative fuels or transport modes the Austrian NPF does not specify any future estimates for alternative fuels and vessels. Altogether, it can be concluded that the Austrian NPF is based on the assumption that electric vehicles will gain in importance while other alternative fuels and vessels remain niche products until the 2020 time-frame.

A target of 5 hydrogen refuelling points is established for 2020. Currently, 3 hydrogen refuelling points are already in operation in Vienna, Linz and Innsbruck. For the future deployment, coordination will be sought with neighbouring countries to ensure besides appropriate coverage of urban/suburban agglomerations also an appropriate hydrogen infrastructure along the TEN-T Corridors.

Hydrogen refuelling points on networks determined by Member States having decided to include hydrogen refuelling points accessible to the public in their National Policy Framework (2025)

A target of 1-2 LNG refuelling points at Austrian inland ports is foreseen, depending on market demand. Dual use LNG refuelling for vessels and heavy-duty trucks are proposed. The NPF mentions for the locations the port of Linz or Enns-Ennsdorf (TEN-T Core Network) and possibly the port of Vienna (TEN-T Core Network).

At country level, a target of 1-2 LNG refuelling points is foreseen, depending on market demand. Dual use LNG refuelling for vessels and heavy-duty trucks are proposed. The NPF mentions for the locations the port of Linz or Enns-Ennsdorf (TEN-T Core Network) and possibly the port of Vienna (TEN-T Core Network). If both LNG refuelling points were realised this would guarantee that the maximum distance requirement for LNG refuelling points along the TEN-T Core Network would be fulfilled on Austrian territory.

The Austrian NPF states that because of the current good coverage for CNG refuelling points in Austria no urban/suburban agglomerations were designated for the targets. Nevertheless, the Annex contains a map with the current CNG refuelling points and it is visible that the 6 urban agglomerations with more than 50,000 inhabitants, Wien, Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck, and Klagenfurt are currently well covered with publicly accessible CNG refuelling points.

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of CNG refuelling points presented in the provided map and checking the routes of the TEN-T Core Network, it seems that the distance requirement of one CNG refuelling point at least every 150 km is fulfilled, already today.

Table 5.1-3 shows that the currently available number of CNG refuelling points is sufficient to pass the threshold value of one CNG refuelling point per 600 vehicles. The NPF is sceptical about future potential for CNG and foresees no further increase of CNG refuelling points except in Tirol. The currently available 171 public CNG refuelling points in Austria could probably support up to approximately 100,000 CNG cars on Austrian roads.

The NPF mentions that Austria has a basic network of shore-side electricity supply, without giving specific details. Future analysis will be performed under the "Aktionsprogramm Donau des bmvit bis 2022".

Shore-side electricity supply for inland waterways vessels and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports of the TEN-T Core Network and in other ports (2025)

Austria's airport in the TEN-T Core Network, Vienna Schwechat, has according to the NPF, 42 fixed ground power units and several mobile ground power units. Other Austrian airports have mobile ground power units. As a minimum target, the Austrian NPF states that is aims at preserving the existing infrastructure.

The Austrian NPF states that because of the current good coverage for recharging points in Austria no urban/suburban agglomerations were designated for the targets. Nevertheless, the Annex contains a map with the current recharging points and it is visible that the 6 urban agglomerations with more than 50,000 inhabitants, Wien, Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck, and Klagenfurt are currently well covered with publicly accessible recharging points.

According to the visual assessment of spatial distribution of recharging points presented in the provided map and checking the routes of the TEN-T Core Network, it seems that the distance requirement of one recharging point at least every 60 km is fulfilled, already today. The Austrian NPF assumes that there will be one private recharging point available per EV. It also declares that the recharging infrastructure development beyond 2020 will depend on market needs.

Table 5.1-3 shows the values of the sufficiency index IS = Number of AFV / Number of AF Recharging/Refuelling points. Regarding the electric vehicles, for the current situation, with 5.37, the index passes the assessment threshold of 10 AFV per recharging point. For 2020, depending of the scenario, the range of values 18-37 of the index suggests that the targeted number of recharging points in the Austrian NPF may be insufficient. The Austrian NPF objectives for 2020 contain a network of 500-700 high power recharging points and 3,000-4,000 normal power recharging points.

The checklist shows that all the requirements of the Directive are covered.

Checklist to assess whether all requirements to be addressed in the NPF are fulfilled

Table with the national targets and objectives established for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure at the horizon 2020, 2025 and 2030

The majority of measures in the Austrian NPF is already existing and future extension is proposed. They cover a wide variety of types, addressing many deployment barriers. The number of proposed measures is high and is covering various fuels and modes. The Austrian NPF puts a lot of emphasis on electric vehicles. The measures are presented in a well-structured and logical manner. They are often very limited in time and budget, although extension is foreseen for most of them. This could be perceived by market actors as a lack of predictability in terms of stability of support measures.

Through the TEN-T inland waterways network, Austria is connected with Germany and Slovakia through the Rhine - Danube Corridor.

In July 2016, according to the Austrian NPF, Austria had 4,793,759 registered passenger cars. In 2015, it had 6,503,883 registered road vehicles of all types (motorcycles, passenger cars, microbuses and buses, goods vehicles, tractor units, trailers and semi-trailers and special vehicles). The present situation of few AFV on Austrian roads, with for example less than 0.2% of electric passenger cars, is regarded by Austria as insufficient and in need of improvement.

Through the TEN-T Road Corridors, Austria is connected with the following Member Stat