PTW Position CO2 measurement and labeling scheme scheme ACEM July 2009 ACEM July 2009
Facts and Figures Facts and Figures • PTW’s contribution to European road transport CO 2 is predicted to remain stable around 1.3%. • PTW’s fuel consumption, relative to overall passenger transport, is also roughly about 1% roughly about 1%. • PTW’s CO 2 levels by comparison to cars are still relatively low by all comparative measures examined (mass, engine size, engine power, power/mass ratio) / i ) • All PTW CO 2 emissions are – with very few exceptions – below today’s EU average car CO 2 level of around 160 g/km g g/ 2 • Average PTW CO 2 level is already below the car 2012 average mandatory target. • R Real life PTW CO 2 emissions as measured by ADEME back up our l lif PTW CO i i d b ADEME b k findings.
LAT Quote Study on possible new measures y p concerning motorcycle emissions • “Finally, CO2 emissions from PTWs are overall a very small share of total a y, O e ss o s o s a e o e a a e y s a s a e o o a emissions. Given the fact of much lower CO2 emissions of PTWs per passenger, compared to passenger cars, the increase in trips conducted by PTWs will actually have a positive effect in the overall reduction of by PTWs will actually have a positive effect in the overall reduction of CO2 emissions from road transport.” • “PTWs appear as much more energy efficient means of transportation than passenger cars and their activity should be promoted as a measure to further control GHG emissions from road transport. The energy p gy efficiency labelling regulation should be formulated in a way that will not affect the sensitive PTW market.” November 2008 ‐ LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI
Industry Position y • PTW Industry supports CO2 measurement in the coming regulation, as consumer information plays an important role in orienting the modal choice of citizens in transport choice of citizens in transport. • However there is no urgent need to anticipate such a provision: based on the commonly recognized low contribution, the benefit for the society will be marginal. i ill b i l • Passenger car and PTW experience so far showed negative impacts for manufacturers and consumers, and counterproductive effect for the , p society due to – Intrinsic instability of CO2 based taxation systems (if the system works, governments get less taxes) governments get less taxes), – Unfair mixed objectives in CO2 taxation schemes (CO2 emissions mixed with cc class), – Disharmony in labeling schemes. Disharmony in labeling schemes • One can hope the car sector solves these issues before introducing CO2 measurement leading to labeling scheme for PTWs.
ACEM Quote “Where CO2 is concerned, the present lack of official data is unhelpful to the motorcycle industry. The CO2 measurement will come by 2012 with the PTW framework regulation under preparation and linked with Euro 4 type ‐ approval. Anticipation of CO2 measurement at national level as done in Spain has Anticipation of CO2 measurement at national level ,as done in Spain, has brought instability and uncertainty in the market, these distorsions damaging both manufacturers and consumers. The introduction of unified test and method of publication, linked to type ‐ approval, are essential to end speculation about the performance of our products and to achieve EU common goals on Climate Change. “ Jacques Compagne Secretary General y ACEM July 2009
Annex 1 Annex 1 Stability of CO2 taxation schemes • The future PTW framework regulation local pollutants limits will have an indirect impact on CO2 emissions • To ensure stability of a taxation system, it is therefore better to use official CO2 type ‐ approval measurement once the regulation is yp pp g adopted. All new and old type approvals will be carried out using exclusively WMTC for polluting emissions and CO2 measurement. • Every PTW tax revision risks to result in an overall increased tax level because today's PTW taxation is at a generally low level ‐ such an increased taxation level is in complete contradiction with our industry increased taxation level is in complete contradiction with our industry request to incentivise new PTW
Annex 2.1 Spain: the negative example of unstable and mixed CO2 taxation scheme • Having decided to use CO2 as a basis, Spain initially applied to PTWs the same taxation scale than for cars. • Subsequently, to ensure similar fiscal revenues, Spain changed its system 2 times over an 18 ‐ month period bringing uncertainties for system 2 times over an 18 month period bringing uncertainties for manufacturers and consumers. • S Spain introduced arbitrarily the 74 kW and now also the 0.66 kW/kg i i d d bi il h 74 kW d l h 0 66 kW/k thresholds regardless of CO2 emissions! • Any quick succession of significantly different tax schemes such as in Spain should not be copied across the EU
Annex 2.2 Spain: the negative example of unstable and mixed CO2 taxation scheme • Evolution of the CO2 taxation scheme over a 18 ‐ month period Spanish registration tax for motorcycles (over 250cc) from February 2008 to the 25th of December 2008 from the 25th of December 2008 to ¿2009 October? from ¿2009 October? On Tax rate Criterion (CO2 emissions & power) Tax rate Criterion (CO2 emissions & power) Tax rate Criterion (CO2 emissions & power/mass) 0% 0% up to 120 gr/Km up to 120 gr/Km 0% 0% up to 80 gr/Km up to 80 gr/Km 0% 0% up to 100 gr/Km up to 100 gr/Km 4.75% over 120 gr/Km up to 160 gr/Km 4.75% over 80 gr/Km up to 100 gr/Km 4.75% over 100 gr/Km up to 120 gr/Km 9.75% over 160 gr/Km up to 200 gr/Km 9.75% over 100 gr/Km up to 120 gr/Km 9.75% over 120 gr/Km up to 140 gr/Km over 200 gr/Km over 120 gr/Km over 140 gr/Km 14.75% 14.75% 14.75% Motorcycles powered over 74 Kw (100 HP) Motorcycles powered over 74 Kw (100 HP) Motorcycles powered over 74 Kw (100 HP) Motorcycles powered over 74 Kw (100 HP) and power/mass* over 0,66 Kw/Kg (at any at any emission level at any emission level emission level) 14.75% Motorcycles not proving their CO2 level 14.75% Motorcycles not proving their CO2 level 14.75% Motorcycles not proving their CO2 level * Mass according to point 12.1 at COC document
Annex 3.1 CO2 Measurement & Labeling • The CO2 measurement leads to set labeling schemes. So far for the car e O easu e e eads o se abe g sc e es So a o e ca experience this has been done at national level, resulting in huge lack of harmonization. • The same vehicles fall in different classes according to countries, which may require manufacturers developing country ‐ specific models. This reduces the benefits of EU internal market for the manufacturers and for the consumers. • Once again, it is beneficial to wait until the car sector solves this issue before introducing CO2 measurement leading to labeling scheme for PTWs.
Annex 3.2 Energy labeling in Europe Source: annex 3, ADAC Study on the effectiveness of Directive 1999/ 94/ EC
Annex 3.3 The risk of 27 different Energy efficiency classes in the EU Source: annex 8 ADAC Study on the Source: annex 8, ADAC Study on the effectiveness of Directive 1999/ 94/ EC
Recommend
More recommend
