Transport Energy Taskforce Working Group 4: Customer Acceptability Meeting 3 Monday 2 nd February 2015
Item 1: Welcome and introduction The purpose of Working Group 4 is to provide guidance on identifying issues and proposing ways to address customer acceptability issues related to the fuels mix to 2020 and 2030. The group operates under Chatham House rules.
Item 2: Follow up on actions Action: Secretariat to include NRMM as an agenda item at next meeting to discuss how biodiesel used in NRMM, in particular in rail, is accounted for in options to meet the 2020 targets. Action: Grant Pearson, Hugh Tucker, Teresa Sayers and Anja Hazebroek to coordinate a paper on measures to facilitate the successful roll out of E10 for discussion at the next meeting. • Discussion on both these points to take place in today’s meeting.
Item 2: Follow up on actions Action: Jonathan Murray (LowCVP) to report back on comparative fiscal incentives for E10 in Finland, France and Germany.
Item 2: Follow up on actions Action: Hugh Tucker (UKPIA) to confirm the details of CEN’s future work programme on fuel consumption. • Currently, work in CEN shows E10–E25 as a ‘medium’ term priority. • Likely won’t be anything as a BS in the UK before 2020. • No other performance related studies being progressed at this time.
Item 2: Follow up on actions Action: Secretariat to collate information on the current market shares of petrol grades and capacity where E10 has been rolled out. • Finland: Approx 3.1M cars (Avg age 13yrs), sales 110k pa, 60% petrol, 2000 fuel stations – E10 introduced Jan 2011 (Industry led). 4 yrs later penetration is 63% of gasoline sold (Dec 2014) – “protection” Grade 98E5 – Website communication campaign, vehicle compatibility list published May 2010 – Fuel Taxation structured to give incentive to Biofuel – At Pump E10 is approx 10 euroC cheaper than 98E5 The Finnish energy tax reform The Finnish energy tax reform (1 January 2011) changed the basis of the fuel excise tax: Fossil fuels and biofuels are subject to an energy content tax proportionate to their energy content, and to a carbon dioxide tax based on fuel's carbon dioxide emissions. This gave a tax incentive to bio components meeting the sustainability criteria. – 1.6 euroC per MJ and 58 euro/tonne CO2, 50% redn for renewable, 100% redn for double counted (up to 30% tax diff between ETOH and Petrol per litre) • Note – No compatibility issues have been reported
Item 2: Follow up on actions Action: the AA to determine if work on consumer acceptability and perceptions of E10 could be updated through their regular surveys • The AA-Populus motoring panel best suited to provide an updated view here. • This is a monthly opinion poll of 15 questions sent to a panel of around 200,000; response rate is approx. 20,000 completed surveys a month. • It allows filtering of responses by age, sex, region and socio-economic group, whilst maintaining statistically significant/ representative results. • Potential to undertake this in the February survey, with the following timescales: – Final draft questions: 9 Feb – Survey mailing: 16-19 Feb – Survey close/results available: 25 Feb
Item 3: Non-road mobile machinery and options to meet the 2020 targets Questions for discussion: • How could NRMM be accounted for in options to meet the 2020 RED and FQD targets? • In particular, how does rail fit in here? • What further concerns/ considerations should be taken into account here? • How can we best address these moving forwards? What are the options?
Item 4: Discussion on higher blending levels of biodiesel • In light of the recent announcement from France – re. intention to authorise the incorporation of 8% biodiesel (B8) – what impact(s) is this likely to have on the UK (e.g. cross-border driving)? • Is it likely other Member States will follow suit? • Aside from B8 what other solutions are in play in terms of higher blending levels of biodiesel? • How much support do these solutions have? • Which are the most favourable/ viable? • What are the main customer issues arising here?
Item 5: E10 options paper Three roll-out options: 1. Voluntary: obligated suppliers will introduce the grade as a commercial decision as they see fit to meet their renewable obligations. 2. Mandated: HMG will mandate E10’s introduction, which could be done in a number of ways. 3. Co-ordinated approach by common agreement: HMG would support the introduction of E10 with clear (but not binding) goals set in terms E10 pump availability.
Item 5: E10 options paper • What are the pros and cons of each option? • What is the achievability of each option? • Which is the preferred option? What needs to happen/ be put in place to result in sufficient take-up by 2020?
Item 6: Relevant updates from other Working Groups • Draft AutoCouncil fuels roadmap • Implications for mainstream fuels for customers Road map shown to meeting but not distributed as not yet approved by Auto council.
Item 7: Final report skeleton for the Transport Energy Taskforce • Consideration of the final report format and skeleton, which WG4 needs to produce for the high-level group by mid-February. (submit before 19 th Feb) Chapter 5: (WG4 Consumer) • Issues for WG4 • Evidence considered – assurance for consumers (cf GM?); E10 roll out for 2020; Fuel consumption/cost? 2030 fuel mix? [E20, advanced biodiesel, other?]; Possible need to look at for higher blends; Fuel spec / fit for purpose issues • Conclusions - Consensus or disparate views? • Further work
Item 8: AOB Thank you for your time today. Next meeting of Working Group 4 to take place towards the end of February (date and venue TBC).
Recommend
More recommend
