fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.vicente franco, peter mock, joshua...

39
Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller Improving fuel economy and reduction of emissions from road transport in Russia 17-18 June 2014, Moscow

Upload: undprussia

Post on 07-Jul-2015

127 views

Category:

Environment


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Improving fuel economy and reduction of emissions from road transport in Russia 17-18 June 2014, Moscow!

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement !

Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller!

Improving fuel economy and reduction of emissions from road transport in Russia!17-18 June 2014, Moscow!

Page 2: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

2

Some model projections for Russia…!

Page 3: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Transport model projections for Russia!

Page 4: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Projected FC of Russian LDV fleetsource: ICCT Roadmap model!

Adopted = no significant changes to the efficiency of the current fleet!GFEI target = standards cut average fuel consumption of new LDVs 50% by 2030, resulting in a LDV fleet that consumes 50% less fuel per vehicle-km by 2050.!

2.1!2.1!

0.4!

1.1!

0.0!

0.5!

1.0!

1.5!

2.0!

2.5!

2005! 2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035! 2040! 2045! 2050!

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n![m

illion

bar

rels

of o

il pe

r day

]!

Adopted!GFEI Target!

Page 5: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Projected FC of Russian HDV fleetsource: ICCT Roadmap model!

Adopted = no significant changes to the efficiency of the current fleet!Technical potential = standards reduce the average fuel consumption of new HDVs by 3.5% per year from 2020-2030, and 1% per year from 2030-2050.!

0.69!

0.42!

0.00!

0.10!

0.20!

0.30!

0.40!

0.50!

0.60!

0.70!

0.80!

2005! 2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035! 2040! 2045! 2050!

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n![m

illion

bar

rels

of o

il pe

r day

]!

Adopted!Technical Potential!

Page 6: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

6

Designing fiscal incentives for FE !

Page 7: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Comprehensive approach should treat vehicles and fuels as a system

§  Reducing fuel consumption §  Policy instruments include fuel economy standards, feebate

schemes, etc. §  Reducing criteria air pollutants

§  Policy instruments include new vehicle emission standards (Euro V/VI and/or US Tier II/III), and in-use emission control strategies

§  Improving fuel quality §  Reducing carbon content of fuels §  Reducing sulfur content of fuels to near zero levels (<10 ppm)

Slide 7

Page 8: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Design Elements For Effective Incentives!

§  Base fiscal charges directly on vehicle fuel consumption levels, instead of vehicle physical attribute, avoid fixed charges §  Mandatory labeling for fuel consumption is an enabler

§  Apply the incentive widely across fleet, instead of limiting to a portion of the fleet

§  Provide continuous incentive on every fuel consumption or fuel consumption level

§  Targeted incentive programs should also be linked to fuel consumption §  A targeted incentive program refers to incentive provided to vehicles with special

features (such as a certain fuel type, or vehicles equipped with certain technologies)

8

Page 9: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Key types of financial approaches to reduce emission levels from road vehicles!

vehicle tax

registration tax annual tax

tax feebate tax feebate

fuel tax

financial approaches

Page 10: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Key types of financial approaches to reduce emission levels from road vehicles!

vehicle tax

registration tax annual tax

tax feebate tax feebate

fuel tax

financial approaches

Page 11: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

EU CO2 regulation shows positive effect ...!

80!

100!

120!

140!

160!

180!

2001! 2006! 2011! 2016!

2020 – 95g

2015 – 130g

g/km CO2

2011

2011 2020 2001

Page 12: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

… but there are significant differences between member states.!

80!

100!

120!

140!

160!

180!

2001! 2006! 2011! 2016!

g/km CO2

2011

2011 2020 2001

Netherlands switched to CO2 bases vehicle tax!

Page 13: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Vehicle tax in Netherlands shows strong effect on vehicle registrations!

Page 14: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Some countries are using incentives to transition to low-carbon vehicles!Market share of electric cars in comparison to total sales in 2012/13!

14

Page 15: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Key types of financial approaches to reduce emission levels from road vehicles!

vehicle tax

registration tax annual tax

tax feebate tax feebate

fuel tax

financial approaches

Page 16: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Illustration of a ‘feebate’ scheme!

Slide 16

Page 17: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Example of Feebate: French Bonus Malus (2008)

17

-! 6,000"

-! 4,000"

-! 2,000"

! 0"

! 2,000"

! 4,000"

0" 50" 100" 150" 200" 250" 300" 350"

CO2 Emission (g/km)"

Vehicles receive rebates! Vehicles subject to fees "

Page 18: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

French feebate system led to significant drop in CO2 emissions!

Source: Les véhicules particuliers en France (Ademe), March 2011!

§ 2001–2007 avg. reduction new vehicle CO2 = 1 g/km per year!§ 2008: emissions drop 9 g/km and 2009 by 7 g/km, Ministry of

Transport attributes to introduction of bonus/malus system!

Page 19: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Flaws in the French feebate system!

Source: Cuenot, F. (2009), CO2 emissions from new cars and vehicle weight in Europe; How the EU regulation could have been avoided and

how to reach it?, Energy Policy!

§  French feebate system not ideal, leads to:!§  Approx. 300 Mio. € per year direct costs!

§  Additionally about 300 Mio. € decline in VAT revenues, due to higher sales of smaller and cheaper cars.!

Page 20: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

How to design a feebate system?!

$!

g/km CO2!0!FEE!

REBATE!

slope determines marginal costs and benefits!

pivot point can be designed to meet revenue goals!

Page 21: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Feebates: large Impact on manufacturers!

§  Very efficient incentive to implement FE technology!

§  Manufacturers will install all technology that costs less than the fixed change in the CO2 incentive!§  Reduces the overall cost of producing the vehicle !§  Increases mpg, which has some value to customers!

§  DOE modeling (1995 & 2005) found about 90% of the impact was due to manufacturer response!

Page 22: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Important to have a continuous slope, no steps!

$0!

Fuel Consumption – liters/100 km!

Rebate!

Fee!

$1,000!

6.5!

•  Toyota Yaris – 6.4 l/100km!•  Sales +49%!

•  Honda Fit – 6.6 l/100km!•  Sales +3%!

example: Canada!

Page 23: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Feebate vs. fuel economy regulation?!

vehicle regulation “PUSH”

manufacturers

vehicle taxation “PULL” customers

provides certainty of fuel consumption decrease! provides certainty of cost effectiveness!

Page 24: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Pivot Point Doesn’t Matter for Technology!

7.8 L midpoint 8.2 L midpoint

CO2

Emiss

ions

Midpoint Baseline + 4% FE

Vehicle & emissions!• Baseline efficiency – 8 L/100km!•  In-use FE shortfall – 15%!•  Lifetime travel – 240,000 km!•  Lifetime CO2 emissions – 58.7 tons!

[5.2 # CO2 per Liter of gasoline]!

Add technology!•  Improve FE by 4% @ $150 cost!•  Feebate valued at $100/ton CO2!

•  $27.27 / ton C!• About $1 / gallon gasoline!• About $0.26 / liter gasoline!

0!

0!

($147)!

$79!

$147!

$373!

Page 25: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Feebates: Overview!

§  Customers are risk averse and severely discount future fuel savings – fix is standards or feebates!

§  Feebates are far easier to implement than standards!§  Rate can be set without knowledge of vehicle

technology!§  The pivot point needs to be changed periodically

and the fees must be collected and the rebates distributed !

§  Feebates should be more acceptable than standards for manufacturers, as the cost is known !

Page 26: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Chile Proposal to use feebates to Promote Cleaner Vehicles!

Emission of NOx! Type of Vehicle! Incentive! Disincentive!

NOx < 0.02! Electric/Fuel Cell, some hybrids!

$1000! --!

0.02 < NOx < 0.1! Euro 5/6 gasoline!Euro 6 diesel!

$500! --!

0.1 < NOx < 0.2! Euro 4 gasoline!Euro 5 diesel!

0! 0!

0.2 < NOx < 0.3! Euro 3 gasoline!Euro 4 diesel!

0! $500!

0.3 < NOx < 0.5! Euro 2 gasoline!Euro 3 diesel!

0! $1000!

0.5 < NOx < 0.8! Euro 2 diesel! 0! $1500!

Slide 26 Ø  Source: Centro Mario Molina, 2011!

Page 27: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

GFEI Feebate Tool Development!

§  Setting vehicle standards requires a high level of knowledge and expertise on technology, vehicles, cost, benefits, and lead time.!

§  Feebates offer most of the benefits of vehicle standards and can be effectively implemented at less cost and with a much lower level of knowledge and expertise. !

§  UNEP/ICCT have awarded a contract to develop a simple to use feebate tool for use by governments to create financial incentives. The tool is specifically aimed at developing countries and countries in transition, and is targeted for use by ministries of finance.!

Page 28: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Key types of financial approaches to reduce emission levels from road vehicles!

vehicle tax

registration tax annual tax

tax feebate tax feebate

fuel tax

financial approaches

Page 29: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Today, at least 16 countries have some form of CO2 or fuel efficiency tax on light-duty vehicles!

§  New vehicle purchase or registration:!§  Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Ireland,

Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, U.S.A.!§  Annual or recurring registration fee:!

§  Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, UK!

§  Sources: N.A. Braathen, 2010. “Incentives for CO2 Emission Reductions in Current Motor Vehicle Taxes”, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP/T(2009)2/FINAL, Environment Directorate, OECD, Paris.!

§  H. He and A. Bandivadekar, 2011. “A Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies Associated with New Passenger Vehicle CO2 Emissions”, ICCT, February.!

Page 30: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Example of a Linear Design: German CO2 Tax!

30

Annual CO2 tax component linear at €2 for each marginal increase of gCO2/km starting at 120 g/km per car in 2009. The threshold will be strengthened overtime. The continuous linear structure provides incentive for lowering CO2 emission at every level.

($500)!

$0 !

$500 !

$1,000 !

$1,500 !

$2,000 !

$2,500 !

$3,000 !

$3,500 !

$4,000 !

80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200!

Lif

eti

me

CO

2 T

ax (

US

$)!

From 2014! From 2012! Current!

95 g

/km!

110 g

/km!

120 g

/km!

Page 31: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Key types of financial approaches to reduce emission levels from road vehicles!

vehicle tax

registration tax annual tax

tax feebate tax feebate

fuel tax

financial approaches

Page 32: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Fuel taxes in EU led to higher diesel share in some member states!

Page 33: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Lower tax for ethanol led to more ethanol vehicles in Sweden!

Page 34: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Lower natural gas tax led to more gas vehicles in Italy!

Page 35: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Market shares of technologies reflect differences in tax regimes!

Page 36: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

36

Some final thoughts..!

Page 37: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

37

Role of fiscal policies in promoting fuel efficiency

§  Encourage manufacturers to adopt technologies to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions

§  Send consumers appropriate price signals to purchase fuel-efficient and low carbon vehicles

§  Support fuel efficiency and emission regulatory targets §  Regulatory standards set the minimum requirement and need to

be strengthened overtime §  Fiscal policies provide continuous incentive to improve

§  Easy to establish, does not require detailed knowledge of vehicles and technology costs, only needs to establish “rate, or value of fuel or GHG savings”, “revenue target”, and “test method and enforcement”

Page 38: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Vicente Franco +49 30.847.129.109 [email protected]

§  ICCT Passenger Vehicles website: http://www.theicct.org/passenger-vehicles !

§  ICCT Staff blog: http://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff!§ Global Passenger Vehicle Standards Update:

http://www.theicct.org/global-passenger-vehicle-standards-update !§ US CAFE Standards: http://www.theicct.org/policies/us-cafe-standards !§  EU LDV CO2 Regulation:

http://www.theicct.org/policies/eu-light-duty-vehicle-co2-regulation !§ Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies to promote fuel

economy: http://www.theicct.org/review-and-comparative-analysis-fiscal-policies !

§ CO2 Standards: http://www.theicct.org/issues/co2-standards !

More information …!

Page 39: Fiscal instruments: incentives for auto fuel economy improvement.Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller

Thank you !

Vicente Franco, Peter Mock, Joshua Miller!

Improving fuel economy and reduction of emissions from road transport in Russia!17-18 June 2014, Moscow!

спасибо