COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficent road transport vehicles
Date: 2017-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: air quality, clean technology, climate change, energy efficiency, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, road transport

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.11.2017  SWD(2017) 367 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficent road transport vehicles {COM(2017) 653 final}  - {SWD(2017) 366 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on the revision of Directive 2009/33/EC 

Executive Summary Sheet 

A. Need for action 
What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The  Clean  Vehicles  Directive  delivers  only  marginally  on  its  main  objective,  namely  to  stimulate  public 
procurement of clean (low- and zero-emission and other alternative fuels) vehicles. Subsequently, its impact on 
market uptake of vehicles, on reduction of CO2 and air pollutant emissions from publicly procured vehicles and 
on growth and competitiveness of the sector is limited. The problem is due to the limited scope of the Directive, 
unclear provisions on vehicle purchases and a limited use of an overall complex monetisation methodology.   

What should be achieved?  
The  main  policy  objective  is  to  contribute  to  the  sustainability  and  competitiveness  of  road  transport,  through 
increased  public  procurement  of  clean  (low-  and  zero-emission  other  alternative  fuels)  vehicles.  Public 
procurement will effectively support clean vehicle market uptake and CO2 and air pollutant emission reductions, 
while preserving growth and competitiveness in the transport sector. This initiative seeks to extend the scope of 
this Directive and to simplify its implementation, while creating long-term market demand certainty.   

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The 2017 State of the Union address notes a priority action of making the EU a world leader on decarbonisation. 
Markets  in  the  EU  are  still  struggling  with  demand.  This  initiative  creates  a  demand-side  stimulus  leading  to 
increased  market  uptake  of  clean  light-  and  heavy-duty  vehicles.  It  supplements  the  post-2020  CO2  emission 
performance standards for cars and vans in a package approach and It sets an additional incentive for low- and 
zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, where CO2 emissions are currently not being addressed. 

This initiative provides long-term policy orientation and supports the strategic alignment of public procurement. 
Security  about  long-term  demand  will  stimulate  market  investment  and vehicle  cost  reduction,  enabling better 
policy action by local and regional authorities. Measures are proportionate and do not intervene in the principal 
responsibility of organisation of (public) transport, while leaving flexibility and discretion to public authorities in 
Member  States  for  the  implementation.  The  revision  extends  market  impetus  from  more  advanced  Member 
States markets to those with nascent markets and helps building a European-wide market approach that cannot 
be achieved by Member States alone. Medium and long-term benefits for European citizens are considerable.  

B. Solutions 
What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why?  
Policy options (PO) differ by the level of ambition and intervention.  

PO1 assesses the repeal of the Clean Vehicles Directive. The main policy objectives for this initiative are meant 
to be addressed through domestic policy action and voluntary action at European level.   

PO2  includes  a  common  definition  of  clean  vehicles  and  a  revised  methodology  to  monetise  energy  and 
environmental impacts of vehicles. Member States are required to choose: either they transpose the definition in 
their law. In this case they are requested to set up a national policy framework that states an ambition level by 
2030. Or they transpose the monetisation methodology, which has to be followed by all public bodies.  

PO3, with two variants (low and high ambition), extends the scope of the Clean Vehicle Directive to vehicles 
rented,  leased,  hire-purchased  and  to  specific  transport  services  contracts.  It  introduces  a  clean  vehicles 
definition  based  on  an  emissions  threshold  approach  (CO2  and  air  pollution  tailpipe  emissions)  for  light-duty 
vehicles  and  sets  related  minimum  procurement  targets  at  Member  State  level.  It  also  establishes  a  common 
reporting and monitoring scheme.   

PO4,  with  two  variants  (low  and  high  ambition),  extends  the  scope  of  the  Directive  as  PO3  but  introduces  a 
clean vehicles definiton based on an alternative fuels approach (battery- and fuel-cell electric, natural gas, plug-
in hybrids) for all light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and sets related minimum procurement targets at Member 
State level. Both PO3 and PO4 remove the monetisation methodology.  

PO5  is  the  most  far-reaching  option.  The  current  Directive  is  replaced  by  a  Regulation  that  prescribes  the 
methodology for monetising energy and environmental impacts of vehicles. This option would be most effective 
in reaching the objectives, but it entails the highest costs and introduces a high level of intervention.  

PO6 extends the scope of the Clean Vehicle Directive to vehicles rented, leased, hire-purchased and to specific 
transport  services  contracts.  It  introduces  a  clean  vehicles  definition  which  combines  an  emissions  threshold 

 
 
approach  (CO2  and  air  pollution  tailpipe  emissions)  for  light-duty  vehicles  with  an  alternative  fuels  defintion 
base  for  heavy-duty  vehicles  and  sets  related  minimum  procurement  targets  at  Member  State  level.  It  enables 
future adaptation of Direcitve requirements for havy-duty vehicles when related CO2-emission requiremnts for 
these vehicles have beens et at EU level. It also establishes a common reporting and monitoring scheme.   

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
PO1  has  not  been  supported  by  stakeholders.  For  PO2,  the  value  added  of  a  clean  vehicle  definiton  was 
acknowledged, but common doubts were expressed on how to ensure coherence and ambition in national policy 
frameworks.  A  majority  of  public  and  private  stakeholders  (cities,  operators,  manufacturers)  supported  the 
introduction  of  a  clean  vehicle  definiton,  with  different  preferences  for  emission-based  or  fuels-based 
approaches.  Car  manufacturers  called  for  an  ambitious  minimum  procurement  target  for  alternative  fuels 
vehicles.  Public  authorities'  representatives  majorily  supported  an  emission-based  approach;  and  minimum 
targets  only  if  these  were  not  set  at  the  level  of  cities.  Transport  operators  maintained  a  similar  view. 
Shortcomings  for  heavy-duty  vehicles  were  noted.  There  was  a  clear  majority  view  that  the  revision  should 
remove the monetisation methodology. PO5 was rejected by most stakeholders.  

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

PO6  as  the  preferred  option  is  expected  to  reduce  CO2,  NOx  and  particulate  matter  (PM10)  emissions  and  to 
reduce  environmental  cost  related  to  CO2  and  air  pollution  emissions  (€  2.2  billion,  lifetime  of  the  vehicles 
procured  in  2020-2035).  It  is  estimated  to  allow  for  6,700  additional  jobs  to  be  created  over  the  time  period 
2020-203 and to increase industry revenue by €4.2 billion over the time period of 2020-2035. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
The  net  cost  savings  for  PO6  are  estimated  at  around  €4.2  billion  relative  to  the  baseline  during  2020-2035, 
indicating wider socio-economic  (increase of revenue for companies, job  creation) and environmental  benefits 
(benefits related to reduction of CO2 and air pollutants).  
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
For  light-duty  vehicles,  impacts  on  SMEs  and  competitiveness  are  moderate,  given  the  overall  low  share  of 
publicly  procured vehicles in vehicle market transactions. Rental and lease companies will have to adapt their 
fleets, which will be facilitated by accelerating cost reductions in vehicle markets. Cost are expected to be passed 
on to clients, with positive impacts on operational cost. In the heavy-duty sector, SME manufacturers of low and 
zero-emission  vehicles  will  profit,  whereas  SME  suppliers  of  conventional  vehicles  will  have  to  adapt.  Clear  
and  predictable  long-term  market  demand  for  buses  will  support  competitivneess  of  the  sector.  Increased 
investment in recharging and refuelling infrastructure and electricity grids would have a positive growth impact. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
Additional procurement costs are assumed to amount to €2.2 billion over the time period 2020-2035. Slight 
administrative costs savings of €2.4 million are estimated over the full assessment period (until 2035).  
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No other significant impacts were identified through this IA. The IA identified that impacts on tax revenues can 
vary at Member State level, given different fuel and energy taxes. 
Proportionality?  
Public procurement procedures are strategically aligned. The initiative leaves flexibility to Member States and 
public bodies to adapt the minimum requirements to domestic conditions. Measures proposed do not intervene 
into Member State competence to organise transport provision. They concern a share of public procurement, not 
its totality; they leave the technological choice. Minimum requirements are differentiated among Member States.  

D. Follow up 
When will the policy be reviewed?  
The Commission will evaluate the new legislation in 2027. 

EN 

EN