Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 7 October 2014
(OR. en)
14009/14
ADD 2

CLIMA 90
ENV 814
ENER 424
TRANS 465
ENT 218
IA 7
COVER NOTE
From:

Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt:

7 October 2014

To:

Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European
Union

No. Cion doc.:

SWD(2014) 295 final

Subject:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT on the calculation methods and reporting
requirements pursuant to Article 7a of Directive 98/70/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel
fuels Accompanying the document COMMISSION DIRECTIVE ../.../EU
laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to
Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating
to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2014) 295 final.

Encl.: SWD(2014) 295 final

14009/14 ADD 2

MS/am
DG E 1B

EN

EUROPEAN
COMMISSION

Brussels, 6.10.2014
SWD(2014) 295 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

on the calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Article 7a of
Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the
quality of petrol and diesel fuels

Accompanying the document
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE ../.../EU
laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive
98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol
and diesel fuels
{COM(2014) 617 final}
{SWD(2014) 296 final}

EN

EN

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

on the calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Article 7a of
Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the
quality of petrol and diesel fuels

Accompanying the document
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ../.../EU
laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive
98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol
and diesel fuels

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the Fuel Quality Directive1 (“FQD”') introduced an obligation on fuel suppliers to
reduce by 6% the lifecycle greenhouse gas (“GHG”) intensity of all road (and non-road
mobile machinery) fuels by 2020. To comply with this requirement fuel suppliers need to
report and account for the GHG emissions associated with the fuels they supply. The
methodology for calculating the lifecycle GHG intensity of fuels of non-biological origin was
left to be developed through comitology2. A methodology for calculating the lifecycle GHG
intensity of biofuels is already prescribed in the FQD.
In this context, a draft3 implementing measure was discussed in the Fuel Quality Committee
with the Member States during 2011 and 2012 and resulted in a "no opinion" vote. In
accordance with the provisions of the Comitology Decision, the Commission is now obliged
to submit a proposal to the Council. This impact assessment supports such a proposal.
2.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Under article 7a of the FQD fuel suppliers are to report annually the total volumes of fuel
types/energy supplied indicating their origin and place of purchase, and their life cycle GHG
emissions per unit of energy to Member States’ authorities. The reporting mechanism aims to
ensure accuracy, in respect to the GHG emissions reductions to be achieved, as well as data
on the actual average GHG intensity of the pertinent fuels consumed in the EU in order to
update the fossil fuel comparator, which measures the GHG savings provided by biofuels.
A number of variations are possible for developing such a methodology according to which
level of disaggregation is used (e.g. product, feedstock or consignment), and whether actual
calculations of GHG emissions and/or default values are permitted. The possible
methodologies impose different demands on industry depending on their complexity, and will
ultimately lead to different price signals which will influence the final fuel mix and
corresponding associated mitigation actions.
The aim of this impact assessment is to assess the appropriateness of the options for
developing such a methodology and their associated environmental, economic and social
impacts. To support its assessment, the Commission launched an external study in 20124,
whose interim findings were discussed with stakeholders in December 2012 and April 20135.
3.

SUBSIDIARITY

The obligation on suppliers to reduce by 6% by 2020 the lifecycle GHG intensity of road
fuels used in road vehicles (and in non-road mobile machinery) was introduced with the
adoption of the FQD.

1
2
3

4
5

Directive 98/70/EC.
Directive 2009/30/EC, Article 7a(5).
Annex 3 and 4 of the current proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&XOvfOQKYHt6
7nl0gDR9EQ0pDU4MfDGIJHglKuEmrBsRhxbx1TISJ2Mfg5DtxY23N
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6893ba02-aaed-40a7-bf0d-f5affc85a619
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ced1b370-4443-49ef-839f-fa4a8b55a550
and
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/9ee501ad-fdfe-4975-80d4-477557384644

3

4.

POLICY OBJECTIVES

The chosen methodology needs to address the general objective of the FQD:
To ensure that the GHG intensity of road transport fuels is accurately measured and reduced
by at least 6% compared to 2010.
Given the following specific objective:
To establish a suitable methodology for fuel suppliers to accurately estimate and report the
volumes, origin, place of purchase and the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels
that they supply.
and operational objectives:
To establish a methodology for fuel suppliers to report as accurately as possible the life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions, covering all relevant stages including extraction, land-use
changes, transport and distribution, processing and combustion, irrespective of where those
emissions occur, of the fuel and energy other than biofuels that they supply.
To ensure that the methodology results in as accurate as possible fossil fuel comparator.
To ensure that the reporting methodology is as consistent as possible with that already
established in the legislation for biofuels.
To ensure that such methodology enables Member States to verify compliance by fuel
suppliers with their obligation in a way which does not lead to an unacceptable level of
administrative burden for suppliers and competent authorities.
5.

POLICY OPTIONS

The policy options considered in the impact assessment are described below:
Options/sub-options
A) No methodology

B) GHG default values
by fuel type

Description
No methodology would be proposed and so Member States would not be able to
implement the FQD. The Commission thus fails to act; accordingly this option is
discarded without any further analysis.
This approach would represent the simplest reporting requirement. It requires an
average default GHG intensity value to be developed for the main four fuel types
consumed in the EU (i.e. petrol, diesel/gasoil, liquefied petroleum gas and
compressed natural gas). It does not differentiate between suppliers according to
the feedstocks that are included in their fuel mix as these are integrated in the EU
(option B1) or Member State (option B2) average. As Option B2 leads to internal
market barriers (different requirements would apply to fuel suppliers depending on
which Member State the fuel is supplied to), which is against the objective of the
FQD, this option has been discarded and only option B1 has been further assessed.
Option B1 is favoured by the oil industry (including oil majors, independents and
traders), certain exporting oil countries and certain Member States.

C) GHG default values
by feedstock type

Under this option, the GHG intensity of all feedstocks used in the EU would be
reported separately through the use of average default values (i.e. petrol and
diesel/gasoil from oil, natural bitumen, oil shale, coal to liquid, gaseous fuel and
electric energy, etc.). Therefore, differences between suppliers according to the
feedstocks that are included in their fuel mix would be reported. This methodology
would require suppliers to collect information beyond their existing levels as well

4

as additional requirements to track it throughout the supply chain.
Option C was the measure submitted to the Member States in October 2011. This
option is favoured by environmental NGOs and certain Member States.
D) GHG default values
by feedstock type or
actual GHG values

Under this option, suppliers’ compliance would be based on the GHG impact of all
feedstocks used in the EU (e.g., petrol and diesel/gasoil from oil, natural bitumen,
oil shale, coal to liquid, gaseous fuel and electric energy, etc.). Suppliers would
report default values based on average (option D1) or conservative, higher than
average, GHG intensity values (D2). These options would require reporting of the
origin of fossil fuel feedstocks. Alternatively, suppliers may choose to provide
actual values. This option implies the same data collection and traceability
requirements as option C, the compliance effort of option B1, and additional
efforts for those suppliers choosing to report actual values.
Options D1 and D2 are favoured by environmental NGOs, and stakeholders from
the bioenergy and agricultural sectors as this is the methodology applied to
biofuels.

E) Actual GHG values

This option requires upstream GHG emissions estimates for individual fuel
consignments to be calculated and reported (e.g. field level, trade name,
Marketable Crude Oil Name, etc.) by suppliers. This option should provide the
most accurate reporting of the GHG intensity of fuels consumed in the EU but is
also the most complex, as suppliers would need to provide their own values and
data limitations currently exist.
Option E is not favoured by any specific stakeholder group, although it is seen by
some Member States and certain oil exporting third countries as the fairest
approach as it is based on full differentiation of all fuels.

6.

ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS

This summary presents the options in terms of their effectiveness in achieving the key
objectives as well as their implications for wider environmental, social and economic impacts.
6.1.

Effectiveness

The most effective option for reporting the GHG intensity of fuels at EU and supplier level is
option E, as it requires all fuel suppliers to report actual values. However, actual
disaggregated data may not currently be available for all fuel types and suppliers; it is also the
most complex from a verification perspective and carries the largest risk of fraud.
The second most accurate option for reporting GHG intensity at EU and supplier level is
option C, as fuel disaggregation at a feedstock level already captures most of the variation
between fuels according to their GHG intensity. This methodology requires additional data
collection and tracking efforts from fuel suppliers and verification by Member States would
be of a medium complexity.
The third most accurate options are D1 and D2. These options provide modest accuracy for
reporting the GHG intensity at supplier level, for similar reasons as B1. However, given that
only suppliers with a lower GHG intensity than the EU average would be encouraged to
report actual values under this option, the reported average EU emissions could be
underestimated by up to 1 p.p. of the overall 6% target in the case of option D1. This effect
could be mitigated under D2 as the conservative default value would also encourage suppliers
of fuels with higher emissions than the average to report actual values. This methodology

5

does require significant additional data collection and tracking efforts from fuel suppliers and
verification by the Member States would be complex. Arrangements would be more complex
for those suppliers choosing to provide actual values.
The simplest and least cost option is B1 (average default values per fuel). However, it is also
less accurate due to the fact that the reporting requirements based on averages do not capture
either GHG intensity variations between (i.e. conventional versus unconventional fuels) and
within (higher intensity conventional fuels versus lower intensity conventional fuels)
feedstock categories. While this option poses some risks with regards to the accuracy of the
reported average EU emissions as well as the development of the fossil fuel comparator
values as no market information is collected, this option would enable Member States to
verify compliance in the simplest possible way and minimise possibilities for fraud through
implementing a methodology with the least administrative complexity .
With regards to policy coherence with biofuels, option D2 would be most consistent, while
option D1 and C would be partly consistent with the biofuel methodology. Furthermore,
option E would be more burdensome on fuel suppliers. Clearly option B1 would be less
burdensome.
6.2.

Environmental impacts

The production of fuels can have a negative impact on the environment because of upstream
and downstream activities, which can lead to negative air quality and biodiversity impacts as
well as the consumption of large amounts of resources, particularly for unconventional
sources. Although all options lead to some positive environmental impacts compared to the
baseline scenario, these are highest under option C as the reduction in the consumption of
more resource intense and more polluting unconventional sources is greater.
6.3.

Economic and social impacts

6.3.1.

Administrative costs

Quantification of the administrative burden has been estimated to be the lowest for option B1
at €3 million annually as this option has the simplest reporting and verification mechanism.
These costs increase, in line with higher degree of complexity on average, to €15, €23, €23 to
€31, and €31 million annually for options C, D1, D2 and E respectively. These costs are low
for all the options and of the order of magnitude between €0.001- 0.01 cents per litre.
6.3.2.

Compliance costs

Once the levels of biofuels and renewable electricity needed to achieve the Renewable Energy
Directive are considered, the bulk of the additional carbon abatement required to comply with
the FQD comes from reductions in upstream emissions and additional biofuel blending under
all options leading to similar costs. The replacement of higher intensity with lower intensity
fuels seems to play a small role in terms of the overall abatement needed under those options
where this is allowed given that abatement costs for other technologies are much more
favourable. The option with the lowest compliance costs is D1 at €1 million annually,
followed by options B1, C, D2 and E, at €6, €8, up to €9, and €9 million respectively6. These
costs are low for all options and up to 0.003 euro cents per litre. Option D1 presents lowest

6

Estimated costs are reported here on an annual basis. Conversely to administrative costs, total
compliance costs are only expected to occur in the year 2020 when the FQD obligation applies.

6

compliance costs due to the underestimation of the emissions at EU level, which leads to a
lower abatement effort overall being required.
6.3.3.

Other costs and competitiveness impacts

Option D1 appears to lead to the lowest increase in market costs at €59 million, due to the
under-reporting of EU average emissions. All other options lead to similar market costs of
€79 million. Overall impacts on pump price increases of 0.02-0.04 eurocents per litre have
been estimated for all options7.
With regards to the impacts of the additional burden on the petroleum industry sector, and in
particular EU refineries, it seems reasonable to assume that producers will pass through most
of the costs to consumers. As costs are low and no significant reductions in total fuel
consumption are expected, no significant changes in market structure, value added, capacity
to innovate, employment or competitiveness of EU refiners compared to international
competitors is expected.
7.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the choice of methodology is critical in determining the accuracy of the
reported carbon intensity of the fuels being supplied. Some methodologies lead to a certain
underestimation and/or overestimation of the GHG intensity of fuels at the supplier level.
Options D1 and D2 tend to also underestimate the GHG intensity of fuels at the EU level.
Inaccurate reporting can partly reduce the overall ambition of the FQD and affect the way the
burden is shared amongst fuel suppliers.
The options that lead to a further level of disaggregation than simply fuel type (i.e. feedstock
and fuel consignment level) are more effective in encouraging consumption of lower GHG
intensity and less polluting fuels. These yield positive results with regards to environmental
impacts. Indirectly, this tends to lead to small reductions in imported products as crudes
sourced by EU refineries tend to exhibit lower carbon intensities.
There is little variation in terms of economic costs with regards to the different options
although some differences in administrative and compliance costs have been found – option
B1 is the lowest cost option. These costs are not considered to be significant in terms of
economic or competitiveness impacts for fuel suppliers. Reductions in upstream emissions
and increased biofuel blending deliver the bulk of the additional reductions needed to achieve
the FQD target under all options. The possibility for suppliers to replace higher with lower
carbon intensity fossil fuels plays a limited role in achieving the mandated greenhouse gas
emission reductions under those options where this abatement option is allowed.
Where suppliers can choose between the reporting of their actual GHG intensity values or a
default value being provided there is a risk that suppliers of high intensity crudes could profit
from this flexibility unless such default values are set conservatively.
B1 leads to the simplest implementation and verification mechanism given that it does not
require any additional data collection. However B1 (based on average default values per fuel)
yields certain inaccuracies in terms of reporting GHG intensity at supplier level and poses
some risks in reporting the EU average. This is because with reporting based on average
7

The pump price increases represent the change in cost between the baseline and the different optionsthe effort of achieving the FQD once the RED target has been met. Absolute pump price increases for
the entire 6% reduction would be around 0.3 cents per litre.

7

default values per fuel no real market information is collected by suppliers under this option.
While being the simplest approach option B1 environmental performance is relatively worse.
In contrast, options C, D1 and D2 are similar in terms of providing an accurate methodology
and present positive environmental impacts, although more burdensome in particular D2 . In
conclusion, there would appear to be a series of issues that finely balance the choice between
options C, D1, D2 and B1. The option B1 approach is expected to lead to the lowest
administrative costs. While option E is attractive as potentially more accurate, it would be
difficult to implement this option in the short term. That is why option B1 is preferred:
Average default GHG values by fuel type (petrol/diesel) based on an EU fuel mix (“basic
reporting approach”).

8