Quantifying Impacts of Transport- Related CO 2 Abatement Policies Roundtable on Transport - Related...

Quantifying Impacts of Transport-Related CO2 Abatement Policies

Quantifying Impacts of Transport-Related CO2 Abatement Policies

Roundtable on Transport - Related Climate Change Problems

OECD Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency

Paris, 18th February 2000

John DodgsonNational Economic Research Associates

n/e/r/a

Roundtable on Transport - Related Climate Change Problems

OECD Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency

Paris, 18th February 2000

John DodgsonNational Economic Research Associates

n/e/r/a

n/e/r/aAnnem/jd15022000_colour pc.ppt

Structure of this presentation

1. Introduction: objectives and structure

2. The issues that need to be considered

3. The main policy options

4. Developing policy packages: France, the Netherlands, the UK

5. Overall conclusions5.i Policy packages5.ii Quantification

1. Introduction: objectives and structure

2. The issues that need to be considered

3. The main policy options

4. Developing policy packages: France, the Netherlands, the UK

5. Overall conclusions5.i Policy packages5.ii Quantification


The issues that need to be considered

1. Measuring existing carbon emissions from the transport sector

2. Understanding the way in which these emissions are generated

3. Forecasting emissions in a “Business as Usual” (BAU) case

4. Identifying specific policy options to limit carbon emissions below the levels they would reach in the BAU case

5. Quantifying the impact of particular options both individually, and when combined in policy packages

6. Assessing whether particular policies can be implemented for practical reasons

1. Measuring existing carbon emissions from the transport sector

2. Understanding the way in which these emissions are generated

3. Forecasting emissions in a “Business as Usual” (BAU) case

4. Identifying specific policy options to limit carbon emissions below the levels they would reach in the BAU case

5. Quantifying the impact of particular options both individually, and when combined in policy packages

6. Assessing whether particular policies can be implemented for practical reasons


The main policy options (I)

1. Economic instrumentsIncreases in fuel taxesRoad congestion chargingFeebatesOther fiscal measures

2. Regulations and guidelinesSpeed limitsTraffic management measuresLand use regulations and guidelines

1. Economic instrumentsIncreases in fuel taxesRoad congestion chargingFeebatesOther fiscal measures

2. Regulations and guidelinesSpeed limitsTraffic management measuresLand use regulations and guidelines


The main policy options (II)

3. Voluntary agreements and actionsECMT/ vehicle manufacturing industry joint

declarationEuropean Commission/ACEA 1998 agreement

4. Information and training initiativesConsumer fuel-economy information initiativeDriver training

5. Research and development

3. Voluntary agreements and actionsECMT/ vehicle manufacturing industry joint

declarationEuropean Commission/ACEA 1998 agreement

4. Information and training initiativesConsumer fuel-economy information initiativeDriver training

5. Research and development


Developing policy packages

FranceSectoral groups of experts produced recommendations. Ministerial meeting on 19th January 2000

NetherlandsOption document. Policy document. Independent evaluation. Monitoring

United KingdomConsultation Document (October 1998). Responses (August 1999). Policy report (February 2000?)

FranceSectoral groups of experts produced recommendations. Ministerial meeting on 19th January 2000

NetherlandsOption document. Policy document. Independent evaluation. Monitoring

United KingdomConsultation Document (October 1998). Responses (August 1999). Policy report (February 2000?)


Policy example (1) increases in fuel duty

The UK Fuel Duty Escalator 1993-1999The UK Fuel Duty Escalator 1993-1999

Real value of fuel duty to be increased by at least a fixed percentage every year up to 2002.1993 3%; 1993-1997 5%; 1997-1999 6%

Real value of fuel duty to be increased by at least a fixed percentage every year up to 2002.1993 3%; 1993-1997 5%; 1997-1999 6%

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

200.00

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Ind

ex (

1990

= 1

00)

Current prices petrol index (1990 = 100)Real petrol price index (1990 = 100)


The UK fuel duty escalator

Expected impactsMileage driven per vehicleTotal vehicle stockNew cars: consumers’ choice of vehicleNew cars: manufacturers’ decisions about technological characteristics of new carsSecond round effects on annual kms driven (“rebound” effects)Vehicle retirement decisions

Main quantification approachesSimple elasticity modelsDisaggregated vehicle stock models

Expected impactsMileage driven per vehicleTotal vehicle stockNew cars: consumers’ choice of vehicleNew cars: manufacturers’ decisions about technological characteristics of new carsSecond round effects on annual kms driven (“rebound” effects)Vehicle retirement decisions

Main quantification approachesSimple elasticity modelsDisaggregated vehicle stock models


A disaggregated vehicle stock model: the UK vehicle market model

CarStockCarStock

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle

FuelConsumption(Litres/km)


Base YearBase Year

cc

cc

cc

x

x

sb = total car stock in base year

vintages

sb

= base year fuel consumption

sf = total car stock in forecast year

Year on YearSurvival MatrixYear on Year

Survival Matrix

cc

=x

Forecast YearForecast Yearvintages

CarStockCarStock

new carpurchases

sf

x

cc

cc

x

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle



new car fuelconsumption = forecast year

fuel consumption


Policy example (2) feebates (the Netherlands)

Car purchasers pay a fee or receive a rebate based on the relationship between the car fuel consumption and the “zero point”

Quantification based on work for the US Department of Energy by Kenneth Train and others

The problem is to predict car purchase responses in the face of changed costs

US work used a nested logit model (household choice of number and types of cars to own)

Car purchasers pay a fee or receive a rebate based on the relationship between the car fuel consumption and the “zero point”

Quantification based on work for the US Department of Energy by Kenneth Train and others

The problem is to predict car purchase responses in the face of changed costs

US work used a nested logit model (household choice of number and types of cars to own)


New car purchases: a critical modelling task

CarStockCarStock

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle



Base YearBase Year

cc

cc

cc

x

x


vintages

sb




Survival Matrix

cc

cc

cc

x

x

=x


CarStockCarStock

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle



new carpurchases

sf


fuel consumption


Policy example (3) reduction/enforcement of speed limits

Quantification issues

1. Measurement of existing traffic speeds

2. Assessment of how reduction in speeds reduces fuel consumption per km

Quantification issues

1. Measurement of existing traffic speeds

2. Assessment of how reduction in speeds reduces fuel consumption per km

3. Assessment of effectiveness of enforcement

4. Second-round effects (see Netherlands study by Peeters et al)

3. Assessment of effectiveness of enforcement

4. Second-round effects (see Netherlands study by Peeters et al)

bb aaSpeed (km/hour)Speed (km/hour)

Fuel Consumption(Litres/km)

Fuel Consumption(Litres/km)


Policy example (4) the EU/ACEA voluntary agreement

Achieve an average CO2 emissions figure of 140g/km by 2008 for all new cars sold in EU

Market individual models of cars with CO2 emissions of 120g/km or less by 2000

Indicative intermediate target of 165-170 g/km in 2003 as a basis for monitoring progress

Review potential for additional improvements - with a view to moving the car fleet average further towards 120g/km by 2012

Achieve an average CO2 emissions figure of 140g/km by 2008 for all new cars sold in EU

Market individual models of cars with CO2 emissions of 120g/km or less by 2000

Indicative intermediate target of 165-170 g/km in 2003 as a basis for monitoring progress

Review potential for additional improvements - with a view to moving the car fleet average further towards 120g/km by 2012


Assessing the impact of the voluntary agreement

CarStockCarStock

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle



Base YearBase Year

cc

cc

cc

x

x


vintages

sb




Survival Matrix

cc

cc

cc

x

x

=x


CarStockCarStock

Annualkm perVehicle

Annualkm perVehicle



new carpurchases

sf


fuel consumption


Issues with the voluntary agreement

Will manufacturers achieve the improvements in technology?

Can they agree on how the savings are achieved between them?

Will consumers choose to purchase the “right” vehicles?

Will reductions in cost per km lead to a rebound effect on kms run?

Clear importance of effective monitoring

Will manufacturers achieve the improvements in technology?

Can they agree on how the savings are achieved between them?

Will consumers choose to purchase the “right” vehicles?

Will reductions in cost per km lead to a rebound effect on kms run?

Clear importance of effective monitoring


Overall conclusions: policy packages

1. Importance of non-car measures (don’t treat as an afterthought)

2. Scope for improvement in fuel efficiency of public transport

3. Non-petroleum-based modes should be considered

4. Mix of types of option will reflect national approaches to policy issues

5. Construction of packages of measures will be a complex iterative process, with inevitable delays

6. Importance of technological measures to reduce new car fuel consumption - the “voluntary agreement” - the need for an “early warning system”

7. Do not delay implementation of other measures

1. Importance of non-car measures (don’t treat as an afterthought)

2. Scope for improvement in fuel efficiency of public transport

3. Non-petroleum-based modes should be considered

4. Mix of types of option will reflect national approaches to policy issues

5. Construction of packages of measures will be a complex iterative process, with inevitable delays

6. Importance of technological measures to reduce new car fuel consumption - the “voluntary agreement” - the need for an “early warning system”

7. Do not delay implementation of other measures


Overall conclusions: quantification

1. Need for transparency in the explanation of how the impacts of different policies have been quantified

2. Value of independent evaluation of national plans

3. Need for a clear definition of what BAU scenarios imply

4. Danger of “double counting” within policy packages

5. Need to draw on existing models

6. Value of disaggregate vehicle stock models

7. Need for care in taking account of rebound effects

8. Important role for ex post evaluation of policy measures

9. Value of sharing experience of quantification internationally

Quantifying Impacts of Transport- Related CO 2 Abatement Policies Roundtable on Transport - Related...

Documents

Transcript of Quantifying Impacts of Transport- Related CO 2 Abatement Policies Roundtable on Transport - Related...