Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ICCT comments on Australia's light vehicle CO2 emission standards discussion paper

ICCT comments on Australia's light vehicle CO2 emission standards discussion paper

Ratings: (0)|Views: 189|Likes:

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1 Post St
 
Suite 2700San Francisco CA 94104+1 415.202.5754www.theicct.org
December 9, 2011Vehicle Emissions and Environment SectionSurface Transport PolicyDepartment of Infrastructure and TransportGPO Box 594Canberra AC 2601Via email: CO2standards@infrastructure.gov.au
Subject: Light vehicle CO
2
emission standards for Australia discussion paper
To Whom It May Concern:The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) would like to thank the Departmentof Infrastructure and Transport (DIT) for the opportunity to provide comments on your “Lightvehicle CO
2
emission standards for Australia” discussion paper. We commend DIT for thethoughtful work towards establishing Australia’s first light vehicle CO
2
standards. The range of options you are considering is consistent levels of stringency in other major vehicle markets,including the 5% annual improvement under consideration in scenario 6, and would beachievable with known and cost-effective technologies.Please let us know of any questions regarding our comments or otherwise where we can be of any assistance to you.Best regards,Anup Bandivadekar Passenger Vehicle Program LeadThe International Council on Clean Transportationanup@theicct.org
 
1
 
ICCT responses on selected key issues raised in:Light vehicle CO
2
emission standards for Australia1) Do you support the setting of staged short and medium term targets? 2) If yes, do youconsider 2020 is the logical date for a firm second stage target? 3) Do you consider itappropriate to set a target beyond 2020 at this stage?
Short-term targets are important to ensure that automakers have an incentive for immediateaction but medium and longer-term standards are critical to capture the real benefits of regulatoryaction. Therefore, the approach to set staged short and medium term targets is appropriate.A short-term target, such as one in 2015, is important to capture the significant near-termimprovements using technologies that are already available in the Australian light-vehiclemarket. Given the long-life of modern automobiles, even small near-term improvements willhave a lasting impact on reducing both fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.The medium and longer-term standards can help set a consistent and predictable regulatoryenvironment for the automobile industry. The longer lead times associated with these standards provides the opportunity for the industry and their suppliers to synchronize investments with product retooling cycles. In this regard, 2020 would be a logical choice for a firm second stagetarget. Setting standards for 2020 now will provide an opportunity for manufacturers to create product plans beyond their existing product cycles with a full view of the regulatory targets withample time to incorporate newer technologies across a range of product platforms. The relativecosts and benefits of technologies applicable for any proposed 2020 standard are wellunderstood.The United States has already proposed a longer-term target for light vehicle GHG standard for year 2025. This proposal based on the most up to date understanding of the potential costs and benefits of technologies to reduce GHG emissions by 2020-2025 timeframe provides a sound basis for setting longer-term targets. The US proposal also includes a mid-term review so that thestandards in the out years (2022-2025) can be strengthened or relaxed as the need may be basedon the best available information at that time.The European Commission has also stated its intent to propose a 2025 target for passenger car emissions, stating that, “… the Commission will assess the feasibility of the target suggested bythe European Parliament of reaching 70 gCO
2
/km by 2025” (European Commission 2010).Thus, the DIT should consider setting longer-term target beyond 2020 at this stage, along with acomprehensive mid-term review.
4) Do you consider 2010 is the appropriate base year for determining the targets?
There is no prima facie evidence to doubt that 2010 is a reasonable base year for setting thestandards. By the virtue of being the most recent, and likely most complete set of datarepresenting the types of vehicles sold in Australia, the 2010 can be considered as the appropriate base year for determining the targets.
 
2
 
5) What rate of CO
2
emissions reduction do you consider is achievable by 2015 and 2020 inAustralia? 6) What do you think is a reasonable CO
2
target for the Australian new lightvehicle fleet in 2015 and 2020? 7) Are there any impediments to Australia achieving themore ambitious rates of reductions embodied in Scenarios 5 and 6 above?
Technical studies and standards adopted around the world contain a substantial amount of information that suggests that scenarios 5 and 6 represent reasonable emission reductionscenarios for light vehicles.Both scenarios 5 and 6 provide a near-term reduction in CO
2
emissions of 2.5 percent or 3 percent per year as compared with the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario of 1.8 percent reduction per year. This is consistent with the goal of the standard – to exceed the emission reductions beyond a BAU type situation – while at the same time moderating the expectations in terms of emission reductions in near-term due to obviously short lead-time involved.In the longer term, scenarios 5 and 6 come up with a target of 141-145 g/km for 2020, with anaverage rate of reduction of around 4 percent per year for ten years. This is very much consistentwith the longer-term targets being set in the EU and US as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
: Annual Rate of Reduction for Fuel Economy Standards in Four Major MarketsAs the work by National Transport Commission has shown, if all new vehicles in 2010 matchedtheir emissions with best-in-class emissions of vehicles available in the market during 2010, theAustralian NACE value would be 135 g/km or 36 percent lower than the 2010 average (NTC,2011). In other words, if all that the CO
2
standards demanded was to bring up the performance of 
EU baseline: 142
!
EU 2020: 95
!
US baseline: 219
!
US 2025:107
!
Japan baseline:131
!
Japan 2020: 105
!
China baseline: 185
!
China 2015: 167
!
90
!
110
!
130
!
150
!
170
!
190
!
210
!
230
!
250
!
270
!
2000
!
2005
!
2010
!
2015
!
2020
!
2025
!
   G   R   A   M   S   C   O   2   P   E   R   K   I   L   O   M   E   T   E   R   N   O   R   M   A   L   I   Z   E   D   T   O   N   E   D   C   T   E   S   T   C   Y   C   L   E
EU
!
US-LDV 
!
Japan
!
China
!
!"#$%&'()*+$,)-./,$-/0/1,+$.)+23'(/$0//,$+1/()-'24$56$'(1378'(.$2,&/-$67/3$,9:/+;$,&/$,)-./,$<'33$=/$32</-4$$!>#$?@$)(8$%)()8)$3'.&,A87,9$B/&'13/+$'(1378/$3'.&,A12CC/-1')3$B/&'13/+4$!D#$E((7)3$-),/$'+$1)3173),/8$7+'(.$=)+/3'(/$)1,7)3$:/-62-C)(1/$)(8$,)-./,$B)37/+4$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
F4GH$)((7)339$"4IH$)((7)339$D4IH$)((7)339$>H$)((7)339$

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->