Scope:

Evaluation of Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles

Evaluation findings:

The impacts of the Clean Vehicle Directive are very limited to date due to inter alia its extremely limited scope, the absence of a definition of a "clean vehicle" and the perceived complexity of the monetisation methodology which led to public authorities using the other options given where transposition made this possible.

Therefore the estimated achieved overall benefit to cost ratio of the Directive is extremely low but remains positive.

There is some evidence to suggest that the Directive and the accompanying initiatives have supported best practice exchange.

A full repeal of the Directive would be unlikely to have significant practical impacts on the market and the current level of demand for clean vehicles; however, the lack of common provisions would make it even more difficult to accelerate the uptake of clean vehicles in the heavy-duty sector, where international competitors are starting to gain stronger advantages.

Moreover, with the repeal the broader message on the relevance of low-emission mobility to public authorities would be lost. A repeal would only be possible together with a linked amendment of the current horizontal public procurement law, due to the link with the monetisation methodology.

A partial repeal - i.e. retaining only the monetisation methodology in its current format - would bias towards diesel vehicles, which already tends to be the dominant technology in the heavy duty vehicle market.

Estimated savings and benefits

The estimated achieved cost/benefit ratio is very low but remains positive. The benefits of the policy - reflecting CO₂ and pollutant emissions reduction and fuel efficiency savings - are estimated to be in the range of €42.6 to €521.1 million, against total costs of around €34.6 to €431.0 million. As the monetisation methodology for choosing clean and energy efficient vehicles has not often been used by national authorities, the administrative costs associated with the Directive are relatively limited (less than €2.3 million on an annual basis).

Which objective(s) did the Commission pursue?

The objective is the simplification of the existing framework to ensure a more common approach that is easier to follow for both public authorities and key market actors.

The initiative also aims at increasing the demand and deployment of cleaner vehicles thus strengthening the competitiveness of the EU industry while decreasing CO₂ and pollutant emissions of transport.

More specifically, this will be achieved through (1) extending the scope of the Directive from purchase to different types of public procurement of vehicles, including through lease, hire-purchase, services contracts, etc. (2) introducing a common definition of “clean vehicle”, for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles (3) setting up minimum national targets for the procurement of clean vehicles. The monetisation methodology will be removed.

Estimated savings and benefits

Regulatory fitness and simplification of the Clean Vehicles Directive will be achieved if a clear definition is set, if related minimum procurement targets are established, and if the complex monetisation methodology is abandoned. Implementation of the provisions in the proposal are likely to yield an initial increase in administrative burden because of the need for target implementation and reporting. But these are outweighed by the overall socio-economic benefits but also the longer-term simplification gains under the proposed approach of clear provisions. The implementation in Member States leaves the possibility to flexibly combine local and regional procurement initiatives according to capacity and maturity of the market.

The proposal has the potential to reduce CO₂, NOx and particulate matter (PM10) emissions and to reduce environmental cost related to CO₂ and air pollution emissions (€2.2 billion, lifetime of the vehicles procured in 2020-2035). It is estimated to allow for 6 700 additional jobs to be created over the time period 2020-2035 and to increase industry revenue by €4.2 billion over the time period of 2020-2035. The net cost savings are estimated at around €4.2 billion relative to the baseline during 2020-2035, indicating wider socio-economic (increase of revenue for companies, job creation) and environmental benefits (benefits related to reduction of CO₂ and air pollutants). Additional procurement costs are assumed to amount to €2.2 billion over the time period 2020-2035. Slight administrative costs savings of €2.4 million are estimated over the full assessment period (until 2035).

Outcome of Legislative Procedure

The approach identified in the Commission’s proposal has been maintained, and the main elements of the proposal (extension of the scope, introduction of common “clean vehicles” definition, setting of national targets) have been kept in the legal act.

The main changes concern the specific contents of the definition of clean heavy-duty vehicles and a separate definition and sub-target for zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles; the agreed approach also replaces the empowerment for the Commission to update the clean heavy-duty vehicle definition, which was foreseen in the initial proposal. Some adjustments are also introduced in the level of ambition of national targets (10% increase for light-duty vehicles, 5-10 percentage points decrease for buses; no variation for trucks).

Further simplification has been achieved in the way procurement through services contracts is to be monitored and reported, as well as through a more targeted use of existing reporting obligations stemming from other EU legislation on public procurement (use of the TED Database as the main reporting tool).

Finally, a process has been foreseen for future revision in 2027, including for the adoption of new targets post-2030 and for possible further expansion of the scope.

Estimated savings and benefits

No updated estimate has been elaborated. The changes introduced in the negotiation are not expected to have major impacts in terms of savings and benefits compared to the initial Commission proposal: the changes introduced to the reporting requirements can be expected to bring some limited additional savings in terms of administrative costs, while no major cost increase is expected as a result of the changes introduced in the negotiation.