8 Transport: alternative fuels
| (a)
(34647)
5736/13
+ ADD 1
COM(13) 17
(b)
(34653)
5899/13
+ ADDs 1-3
COM(13) 18
|
Commission Communication: Clean power for transport: a European alternative fuels strategy
Draft Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 91 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 15 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 86-xxxiv (2012-13), chapter 3 (6 March 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Possibly 5 December 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 These Commission documents, presented in January, proposed
mandatory requirements for the build up and coverage of alternative
fuels infrastructure for transport and common technical standards
for their construction and interoperability. In its Communication,
document (a), the Commission evaluated the main alternative fuel
options that could replace oil as the primary fuel source for
transport (both road and maritime), identifying the options as
electricity, hydrogen, biofuels and natural gas.
8.2 The Commission was concerned by the slow
realisation of alternative fuels infrastructure across the EU
and considered this, along with the lack of common technical standards
for infrastructure, as a major obstacle to the market introduction
of alternative fuels. It therefore put forward a proposal for
a Directive, Document (b), which aimed to deliver a build-up of
alternative fuels infrastructure, compliant with common technical
standards, so as to facilitate a quicker transition to cleaner
transport.
8.3 The draft Directive would require Member
States to adopt and publish National Policy Frameworks for the
market development of electric, hydrogen, biofuels and natural
gas refuelling infrastructure and transmit these to the Commission
within 18 months of the date of entry into force of the Directive,
and every two years thereafter. Member States would be required
to cooperate with one another, either through consultations or
joint policy frameworks, to ensure that measures are coherent,
coordinated and meet the objectives of the measure.
8.4 When in March we considered these documents
we commented that, whilst we recognised the potential role for
EU legislation in promoting alternative fuels infrastructure,
we shared the Government's concerns about the detail of the proposals.
So we asked, before considering the issues again, to have an account
of how these concerns were being addressed in Council working
group discussions, of the outcome of the Government's consultations
and of its own impact assessment. Meanwhile the documents remain
under scrutiny.
8.5 As for subsidiarity, we noted the Government's
contention that the setting of targets for the uptake of ultra
low emission vehicles technology and for the installation of alternative
fuels infrastructure was a matter better left to national policy
makers. Whilst we had some sympathy with this view, we did not
consider the target setting provisions of the proposal breached
the principle of subsidiarity to the extent necessary to warrant
the House issuing a Reasoned Opinion. We did, however, strongly
agree with the Government that the targets for the number of alternative
fuel infrastructure points and their geographical coverage should
not be adopted through a series of delegated acts, thus diminishing
Member State control, but through legislative acts.[40]
The Minister's letter
8.6 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Baroness Kramer), writes now with her department's "Checklist
for analysis on EU proposals" in relation to the draft Directive,
noting that it has been completed following consideration of the
Commission's impact assessments and completion of the Government's
information gathering exercise with stakeholders, a summary of
whose responses she also encloses.[41]
The checklist shows considerable dissatisfaction with the quality
of the Commission's assessments and states that the Government
considers the costs of the proposals have been understated and
the benefits overstated.
8.7 The Minister tells us that her department
received over 50 responses from a broad cross-section of interests
to its information gathering exercise and these provided sound
evidence of the potential impact of these proposals. She says
that:
- stakeholders were generally
supportive of publishing National Policy Frameworks for alternative
fuels infrastructure, as a mechanism to help provide more transparency
and predictability to the market;
- they were less supportive of mandatory requirements
for infrastructure deployment and voiced concerns over the setting
of binding targets and the need of the market to determine the
scale and pact of roll out; and
- there was broad support for common technical
standards for infrastructure, so long as this was done in a timely,
transparent and consultative manner and did not create additional
barriers to market.
8.8 Turning to Council consideration of the proposals,
the Minister says that:
- the first meaningful negotiations
began under the Lithuanian Presidency, and the proposals have
now been discussed in six Council working group meetings;
- progress has, however, been disjointed as the
Lithuanian Presidency has taken a piecemeal approach to the concerns
raised by Member States and remains reluctant to consider the
proposals in a holistic manner;
- so far there has been virtually no discussion
of the proposed use of delegated acts or technical specifications
of the infrastructure, though it is clear through informal discussions
that Member States share the UK's objective to see the use of
the ordinary legislative process to set targets on the number
and location of alternative fuel infrastructure sites in Member
States;
- the Government has opposed the mandatory setting
of targets at the EU level in the early exchanges with some success
— compromise text prepared for the most recent working group
meeting has removed the binding nature of these targets and proposes
that national commitments to the transition to cleaner power be
included within the National Policy Frameworks;
- the compromise text also takes into account the
concerns of the UK and other Member States regarding the premature
picking of 'winning' technologies by broadening the scope of the
Directive to include other types of alternative fuels; and
- the Government has supported the principle of
technical standardisation across the EU for infrastructure construction,
interoperability and use, but opposed the use of EU regulation
to harmonise on today's technology for fear of stifling future
innovation and technological progress.
8.9 The Minister then comments that:
- as its recently published strategy
for ultra low emission vehicles 'Driving the Future Today'[42]
and Call for Evidence[43]
has confirmed, the Government does believe strong action will
be required to achieve its objectives in this area;
- it is committed to working in partnership with
UK industry to deliver the opportunity for the UK; but
- it has been clear thus far that it only supports
those regulatory requirements that are needed to effectively support
the transition to cleaner transport powered by alternative fuels.
8.10 On continuing consideration of the proposals
the Minister says that:
- the Presidency aims for a general
approach at the 5 December Transport Council, though there remain
issues of concerns for Member States that will need to be resolved
to allow this and the timetable remains ambitious;
- in the European Parliament, a vote is scheduled
in the TRAN Committee for 26 November and an indicative plenary
sitting date has been scheduled for February 2014; and
- it is not clear how the European Parliament will
vote on this proposal, though the Government expects to see limited
support for mandatory targets.
8.11 She concludes that:
- the Government is considering
its negotiating position for the remainder of the negotiations
and she will keep us informed of progress; and
- if the Presidency maintains its objective of
reaching a general approach on 5 December she will write again
ahead of the Council to let us know the outcome of further negotiations.
Devolved administrations
8.12 Since we last reported on these proposals
we have received comments from the Northern Ireland Assembly,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, which
we now report to the House.
8.13 The Committee for the Office of the First
Minister and deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly
tells us that it shares the views of the Government regarding
the setting of targets for alternative fuels infrastructure by
the Commission rather than Member States and draws our attention
to specific points made by Northern Ireland's Department for Regional
Development:
- it agrees with the Government
that the Commission should not set targets for the number of alternative
fuel infrastructure points and their geographical coverage;
- the proposed target for the UK in 2020 for the
minimum number of electric charge points exceeds predicted demand;
- new car sales in Northern Ireland remain depressed,
which has reduced the demand for electric vehicles to the lower
end of predictions for uptake in Northern Ireland; and
- for the Commission to require Northern Ireland
to install other alternative fuels infrastructures may place a
disproportionately onerous cost Northern Ireland when there is
no evidence of future demand.
8.14 The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament
tells us that its Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee
notes that:
- the Scottish Government shares
the Government's concerns about setting rigid interim targets
for the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles technology and targets
for installation of alternative fuels infrastructure and that
it holds that Member States have a better knowledge of their
own market requirements, so being better able to set targets —
views which the Committee supports;
- the Scottish Government is,
in principle, supportive of the Commission's view that common
technical specifications for alternative fuel infrastructure would
be a sensible measure — a view which the Committee supports;
and
- in relation to subsidiarity, the Scottish Government
agrees with the Government that setting of targets within individual
Member States is a matter for national policy makers — a
position with which the Committee agrees.
8.15 The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs
Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, whilst noting our
decision not to recommend a subsidiarity Reasoned Opinion, tells
us that it shares the Government's concerns and that it believes,
in particular, that Member States and devolved institutions have
a better knowledge of their own market requirements and are therefore
in a better position to set targets.
Conclusion
8.16 We are grateful to the Minister for the
information she gives us about her department's analysis of the
proposals, the views of stakeholders and developments, such as
they are, in negotiations.
8.17 We look forward to further information
about negotiations, noting in particular the possibility of an
account in advance of the December Transport Council of Presidency
attempts to agree a general approach then. Meanwhile the documents
remain under scrutiny.
40 See headnote. Back
41
See http://europeanmemorandum.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ Back
42
See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/driving-the-future-today-a-strategy-for-ultra-low-emission-vehicles-in-the-uk Back
43
See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-britain-number-one-for-ultra-low-emission-vehicles. Back
|
