A proposal to count the amount of alternative fuels in the European fuel mix to meet CO2 reduction targets for heavy vehicle manufacturers would create uncertainty for the industry and ultimately increase emissions, writes Eamonn Mulholland.
Dr. Eamonn Mulholland is a researcher at the International Council on Clean Transport (ICCT), a non-profit public policy think tank.
I hope you live in interesting times is an expression that can be interpreted as both a blessing and a curse. Regulating trucking sector emissions in Europe calls for a blessing of good expression.
In 2018, Europe remained the only major market that had not yet regulated heavy-duty CO2 emissions – the US and China both adopted truck fuel economy standards in 2011, followed by India in 2017.
Moving forward this year, Europe has proposed a set of standards that, if adopted, would be one of the most ambitious heavy-duty CO2 standards globally.
However, the path from proposal to regulation is long and winding, and a highly controversial alternative fuels provision looms on the horizon, threatening to weaken the effectiveness of the standards.
European climate law, and the EU’s pledge to go carbon neutral by 2050, has catalyzed this move from laggard to pioneer. It was clear that Europe’s trucking sector, which today still relies almost entirely on fossil fuels and emits a quarter of all transport carbon dioxide, would evolve. Needs a quick turnaround to contribute its fair share.
To remedy this situation, the European Commission proposed this year that almost all new trucks and buses should emit 90% less carbon dioxide by 2040.
The industry has already demonstrated its willingness to commit to such a path, with manufacturers responsible for three-quarters of EU truck sales planning for at least half of them to be zero-emission by 2030.
Most policymakers have supported the proposed targets so far, with the EU Council voting yes (although seeking a slightly lower ambition overall), and the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voting similarly (although seeking a slightly greater ambition overall).
These key votes on the proposal left the file largely unchanged, however, as policymakers debated the role that alternative fuels (such as biofuels and e-fuels) should play in CO2 standards, echoing debates over car and truck standards in Only the past. .
Until now, Europe’s CO2 standards have been designed to regulate exhaust emissions. Fuel legislation such as the transmission target in the Renewable Energy Directive focuses on the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuel itself.
The two policy streams are separated for good reason: manufacturers have no control over fuel supplies, and fuel suppliers have no way to reduce tailpipe emissions.
However, there has been a push to mix the two pathways through a mechanism known as the carbon correction factor (CCF).
The proposed mechanism is straightforward: diesel in Europe contains approximately 7.5% of alternative fuels. Some policymakers want this share to be taken into account when manufacturers determine their trucks’ emissions.
Manufacturers have a rapid reduction target of 15% by 2025, so a CCF would boost them halfway without needing to put in extra effort.
You might think that manufacturers would prefer to make their targets more achievable, but five of Europe’s seven major truck manufacturers have spoken out against that idea.
This is because the CCF would create too much uncertainty for them regarding the CO2 reductions they would have to target each year.
Under the CCF, truck makers will rely on a certain quota of alternative fuels to contribute to their target and will plan their sales portfolio accordingly.
But it will be difficult to predict exactly the volume of alternative fuels because there is some flexibility in the transportation target set by the Renewable Energy Directive.
For example, renewable electricity in transportation is important for achieving this goal, and if Member States decide to focus heavily on electricity, this could lead to a decline in the share of alternative diesel.
This uncertainty makes it difficult for truck manufacturers to accurately predict the CO2 targets for their vehicles. Penalties for non-compliance are high. An average truck manufacturer faces fines of almost €50 million if it misses its target by just 1%. With so much at stake, the desire to remove any uncertainty is understandable.
The list of reasons for keeping the CCF outside the standards is long. A recent study by the International ICT Council shows that such a mechanism would effectively reduce manufacturers’ targets by 8% each, which would result in an additional 200 million tons of carbon dioxide being emitted by 2050.
Furthermore, the total cost of ownership of trucks powered by alternative fuels—including hydrotreated vegetable oil, e-diesel, and biomethane—is not expected to reach parity with diesel before 2040. In contrast, electric trucks, which range from For long-distance light to heavy urban delivery, it is expected to reach parity with diesel in less than 5 years.
Although electric truck production is more energy-intensive and the electricity they produce is still partly derived from fossil fuels, they still provide a more effective option for decarbonizing the heavy-duty sector.
Its superior efficiency results in lower life-cycle emissions per kilometer than any alternative today – an electric truck sold today emits 57% less than its diesel counterpart over its lifetime, even when taking into account the increasing share of fuels. Mixed alternative.
So far, the Council and the Parliament’s Environment Committee have decided to reject this provision of the CCF Law. But as eyes turn to a plenary vote later this month, there is no doubt that the issue is bound to rear its head again.
Alternative fuels were narrowly avoided during a plenary session on car and truck CO2 standards last year, and history is finding a way to repeat itself.
Whatever the outcome of the vote, there is no doubt that exciting times lie ahead.
