Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement criteria for Transport 2 nd AHWG meeting: Interactive webinars. 6, 8, 13 and 14 June 2017

Transcription

1 Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement criteria for Transport 2 nd AHWG meeting: Interactive webinars 6, 8, 13 and 14 June 2017 Minutes of the webinars

2 Contents 1 st interactive webinar Category 1 purchase, lease or rental of cars, LCVs and L-category vehicles 6 June... 4 Agenda... 4 List of participants... 5 Minutes... 6 CO 2 emissions... 6 Air pollutant emissions... 7 Technical options to reduce GHG emissions... 7 Durability of the battery... 8 Common criteria... 8 Criteria proposals withdrawn nd interactive webinar Category 2 Mobility services and Category 7 Post, courier and moving services 8 June... 9 Agenda... 9 List of participants Minutes CO 2 emissions Air pollutant emissions Combined mobility services Competences of the tenderer and staff training Environmental management measures Maintenance of the fleet Criteria proposals withdrawn rd interactive webinar Category 3 and 5 Purchase or lease of buses and waste collection vehicles 13 June Agenda List of participants Minutes GHG emissions Air pollutant emissions Exhaust pipe location and auxiliaries Common criteria for vehicle categories Criteria withdrawn Page 2 of 20

3 4 th interactive webinar Category 4 and 6 bus services and waste collection services 14 June Agenda List of participants Minutes GHG emissions Air pollutants emissions Noise emissions New vehicles Route optimisation Common criteria for service categories Criteria withdrawn Conclusions and next steps Wrap of the webinars Page 3 of 20

4 1 st interactive webinar Category 1 purchase, lease or rental of cars, LCVs and L-category vehicles 6 June Agenda AGENDA SCHEDULE Start of the webinar 09:30 1. Opening and welcome Tour-de-table checking audio connections Short introduction 2. CO 2 emissions presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by discussion and feedback from participants 3. Air pollutant emissions presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 4. Technical options to reduce CO 2 emissions presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 5. EV Battery presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by discussion and feedback from participants 6. Common criteria for vehicle categories presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 7. Criteria withdrawn presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by discussion and feedback from participants Next steps - Wrap up of the webinar Page 4 of 20

5 List of participants Surname Name Affiliation Bouteille Adrien Renault Clement Simon ICLEI Ericson Jonas City of Stockholm Fioretti Giandomenico Iveco Gama Caldas Miguel European Commission - DG JRC Garrett Marc Capita Asset Services Gurewitsch David Marc City of Copenhagen Haubold Holger ECF Kaukewitsch Robert European Commission - DG ENV Kregar Zlatko European Commission - DG ENV Le Petit Yoann T&E Lysakowska EC Sandra European Commission - DG MOVE Mariani Flavio NGVA Münster Amrei Deutsche Umwelthilfe - DUH Niclos Ferreras Ester Ministry of Finance and Civil Service (Spain) Pozzo Daniele Iveco Rodríguez Quintero Rocío European Commission - DG JRC Rubí Gabriel City of Palencia Schei Odd Olaf Agency for Public Management and egovernment (Difi) (Norway) Skinner Ian TEPR Varis Taneli Motiva Vidal-Abarca Garrido Candela European Commission - DG JRC Page 5 of 20

6 Minutes CO 2 emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for CO 2 emissions. N1 Class III vehicles JRC proposed two options for N1 class III vehicles: the first one would be a threshold for all vans, regardless their mass, and the second one would be mass-based, using the same correlation as for the CO 2 emissions 2020 targets. This mass-based approach was considered the easiest option to address the variety of N1 class II vehicles, however, a loading-based approach was also proposed by one stakeholder. JRC pointed out that the loading-based approach would require data of CO 2 emissions and loading capacity which may not be readily available. JRC will investigate this possibility, but the mass-based approach should be kept as an option. It was also highlighted that the thresholds must become progressively more stringent over the years. Petrol vans One of the stakeholders indicated that the CO 2 thresholds for vans would be too strict for petrol vans. Large cities are increasingly considering small petrol vans, in preference to diesel vans as a result of their better air quality impacts. However, there are few small petrol vans on the market, and they would not meet the proposed thresholds, which would force authorities to use diesel. WTW vs TTW and alternative fuels Many stakeholders advocated for the use of a WTW methodology, and questioned the selection of TTW option. They argued that the CO 2 type approval values are not able to reflect the benefits of biomethane and ethanol, and other alternative fuels. The use of biomethane would bring the largest environmental improvements, since it could reach a negative balance in GHG emissions if it is produced from biowaste and animal by-products. In their view, the lack of a harmonised and recognised methodology would not be an obstacle, since there are national tools already in place (Sweden, Belgium) and JRC has developed a wide research on WTT for many alternative fuels. Another advantage put forward by a stakeholder was the technology neutrality of WTW. This would allow public authorities to diversify their fleets to meet the targets, rather than force them into electric vehicles. For this stakeholder, this was very important, since the industry has worked on supporting alternative fuels. JRC expressed their concerns about whether there is enough production capacity of biomethane to absorb the increase of demand coming from a bigger share of natural gas vehicles. One of the stakeholders explained that this would not be any issue for cities that have invested in the production and distribution of biogas and biomethane. If those situations are not taken into account, the EU GPP criteria would promote petrol and diesel vehicles over cars running on biomethane. A stakeholder said that a similar discussion was ongoing in the context of the revision of the Clean Vehicle Directive. EU GPP should support the local authority that uses a methodology to favour biomethane in its procurement processes. Page 6 of 20

7 Regarding how to ensure that the vehicle would actually run on biomethane (and not on fossil natural gas), a stakeholder pointed out that maybe there is no need for such an assurance and presented as an example the fact that Audi is producing synthetic natural gas in a way that equals the estimated amount needed by the natural gas cars sold by Audi. However, there was a dissenting view on these arguments in favour of the WTW approach. A stakeholder stressed that the EU GPP criteria should be as simple as possible to encourage its uptake among public procurers. WTW methodology would complicate the criteria and would not bring any advantage to select the most efficient vehicle. JRC also pointed out that the CO 2 type approval is an EU harmonised standard and it would be challenging to develop a new methodology for WTW emissions in the context of the revision of the EU GPP criteria. Besides, the WTW methodology would not ensure the pathway of the fuels used, in those cases where there is not a dedicated fuel supply system. The benefits of biomethane were acknowledged but the possible side effects of promoting natural gas vehicles should be evaluated. If there is insufficient biomethane supply, the result could be increasing the consumption of fossil natural gas. The promotion of biomethane would also need to take into account the differences between EU countries, since the capacity to produce biomethane in some countries is marginal. JRC also highlighted that criteria need to be easy to implement in order to increase the uptake, which is one of the main targets of the revision process. Air pollutant emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Air pollutant emissions. Zero tailpipe emissions vehicles in areas with poor air quality A stakeholder suggested including biomethane vehicles where the electrical charging infrastructure is not sufficient, since it would also lead to a reduction of air pollutant emissions. DG ENV replied that although the natural gas might bring some improvements in terms of air pollution, the aim of the criterion is to give a real push for reducing the emission in those cities with severe air quality issues. That drastic reduction could only be achieved by zero tailpipe emissions vehicles. Another stakeholder warned about the use of electric vehicles in hot climates. The use of air conditioning reduces the electric range quite significantly, and this should be taken into account. Technical options to reduce GHG emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Technical options to reduce GHG emissions. A stakeholder questioned the reasons to drop the criterion on traffic information and route optimisation systems. JRC replied that the initial proposal included them as an award criterion, but the comments received suggested that this criterion was not very useful and would raise privacy and data protection issues. Most people had this application in their phones and requiring it in vehicles would increase the price of the vehicle. Another stakeholder confirmed that some vehicles cannot be equipped with this systems to avoid being tracked down. It was suggested that these systems could be included as an option for the public procurer, to be chosen if possible and desirable. Page 7 of 20

8 Durability of the battery JRC presented the criteria proposal for Durability of the battery. A stakeholder recommended to revise the values proposed for the battery warranty, since the OEMs are currently offering higher values. The criterion should be worded providing enough flexibility to update the initial values according to the market developments. The lifetime of batteries is improving very quickly and the values proposed today can became obsolete very soon. There was a general agreement on giving a dynamic approach to the criterion in order to ensure that the minimum requirements would be above the average market offer at the time of the tender. Common criteria JRC presented the Common criteria for vehicle categories. Low rolling resistance tyres and low noise tyres A stakeholder indicated that the priority for fleet operators is always safety. For example in Scotland, fleet operators will specify that vehicles shall come with mud and snow tyres. Noise and rolling resistance are hardly taken into account in the tyres purchase. Criteria proposals withdrawn JRC presented the Criteria proposals withdrawn. Vehicle manufacture A stakeholder agreed that the data on manufacturing is not available, and asked whether these criteria would be resumed in the future. JRC replied that it would be a possible subject for the next revision. Page 8 of 20

9 2 nd interactive webinar Category 2 Mobility services and Category 7 Post, courier and moving services 8 June Agenda AGENDA SCHEDULE Start of the webinar 14:30 1. Opening and welcome Tour-de-table checking audio connections Short introduction CO 2 emissions presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 3. Air pollutant emissions presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 4. Combined mobility services presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 5. Common criteria for service categories presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 6. Criteria withdrawn presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by Next steps - Wrap up of the webinar Page 9 of 20

10 List of participants Surname Name Affiliation Ericson Jonas City of Stockholm Feldkamp Peter DUH Gama Caldas Miguel European Commission - JRC Haubold Holger ECF Kaukewitsch Robert European Commission - DG ENV Le Petit Yoann T&E Lysakowska Sandra European Commission - DG MOVE Marczian Susanne Ford Mariani Flavio NGVA Ojala Elina Motiva Pozzo Daniele Iveco Rodríguez Quintero Rocío European Commission - JRC Schuijff RR Mondial-Movers van Grinsven Anouk CE Delft Vidal-Abarca Garrido Candela European Commission - JRC Minutes CO 2 emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for CO 2 emissions. The scope of the mobility service is proposed to cover services provided using cars and L-category vehicles. However, a stakeholder indicated that these services may be carried out by means of buses and mini-buses (e.g. elderly people transport). Even though services provided using these vehicles are part of the category 'bus services' within the EU GPP scope, the stakeholder explained that they are usually part of the same call for tender for mobility services, and the contractor chooses the most appropriate vehicle to provide the service. JRC acknowledged the similarities between 'mobility services' and the sub-category 'special-purpose and non-scheduled transport' within the 'bus services' category, and will evaluate how to merge both services in the next draft. The proposal on cyclelogistics was welcomed, but a stakeholder questioned whether the requirements on infrastructure, topography and sufficient number of operators were all needed, since the presence of infrastructure in cities with appropriate topography leads to the development of cyclelogistics, and therefore to a sufficient number of operators. The discussion on the TTW approach was brought up again, since the CO 2 criteria of the service category is based on the CO 2 criteria of the vehicle category. A stakeholder explained that the taxi fleet in Stockholm was composed by a significant share of vehicles running on biomethane, and other alternative fuels. The stakeholder strongly recommended an approach to promote the use of biofuels, particularly biomethane. Page 10 of 20

11 Air pollutant emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Air pollutant emissions. No comments Combined mobility services JRC presented the criteria proposal for Combined mobility services. The concept of 'mobility as a service' was acknowledged as a tool to promote the modal shift, but a stakeholder highlighted that it is still a very innovative solution. For that reason, public procurers need enough flexibility to experiment, try different options and learn from their experiences. It was also argued that the use of electrically assisted bikes reduces the limitations of adverse topography, so this requirement should be removed. JRC explained that the aim of the criterion is giving visibility to the mobility services, and rewarding them by means of additional points. The text of the criterion proposed is meant to be just a description of these services, and if it may set any restrictive provisions, the wording would be reformulated to avoid them. However, JRC may study other ways to provide guidance to public procurers for the purchase of combined mobility services. Competences of the tenderer and staff training JRC presented the criteria proposal for Competences of the tenderer and staff training. In some cities such as Stockholm, taxi services may be provided by means of L-category vehicles. In this regard, a stakeholder asked which eco-driving training would apply to these vehicles. JRC replied that no information has been found about this issue, and that any data that stakeholders might have would be appreciated. Environmental management measures JRC presented the criteria proposal for Environmental management measures. A stakeholder explained the experience of the city of Stockholm with bonuses. This solution allows the operators that do not offer the best fleet to participate in the call for tenders, leading to an increase of the number of tenderers and therefore more competition. The bonus is granted if the environmental performance is improved over time, and if those improvements are not achieved, the contract is not affected, which is very reassuring for the tenderers. Maintenance of the fleet JRC presented the criteria proposal for Maintenance of the fleet. Page 11 of 20

12 No comments Criteria proposals withdrawn JRC presented the criteria proposal for Criteria proposals withdrawn. No comments Page 12 of 20

13 3 rd interactive webinar Category 3 and 5 Purchase or lease of buses and waste collection vehicles 13 June Agenda AGENDA SCHEDULE Start of the webinar 10:30 1. Opening and welcome Tour-de-table checking audio connections Short introduction GHG emissions - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 3. Air pollutant emissions - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 4. Exhaust pipe location and auxiliary units - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 5. Common criteria for vehicle categories - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 6. Criteria withdrawn - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by Next steps - Wrap up of the webinar Page 13 of 20

14 List of participants Surname Name Affiliation Berger Anders Volvo Ericson Jonas City of Stockholm Gama Caldas Miguel European Commission - JRC Hasenberg Volker Daimler Karl Marcel MAN T&B Kaukewitsch Robert European Commission - DG ENV Le Petit Yoann T&E Legoupil Guillaume Translohr Lysakowska Sandra European Commission - DG MOVE Niclós Ferreras Ester Ministry of Finance and Civil Service (Spain) Pop Adriana ACEA Rodríguez Quintero Rocío European Commission - JRC Schei Odd Olaf DIFI van Essen Huib CE Delft Vidal-Abarca Garrido Candela European Commission - JRC Minutes GHG emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for GHG emissions. Fuel cell vehicles The classification of fuel cell vehicles as class C was questioned by one of the stakeholders. Fuel cell vehicles are still under development and this classification could be a disadvantage to compete with other more consolidated technologies. The stakeholder also stressed that the CO 2 reduction potential depends on the production process of the hydrogen, which is usually produced by means of renewable energy. This is also the case of electric vehicles, classified as A, and following the same approach the stakeholder supported that the fuel cell vehicles should be also class A. JRC replied that the literature review shows that the reduction potential of fuel cell vehicles is uncertain, if they run on conventional hydrogen (produced by the steam reforming of fossil fuels, usually natural gas). Conversely, the results for electric vehicles converge towards a minimum reduction of 20%, if the electricity comes from the EU mix. Besides, the criterion proposal allows the contracting authority to classify fuel cell vehicles as B or A, if there is a supply of renewable hydrogen. Share of renewable biomethane The criterion proposal includes a note that allows the contracting authority to qualify dedicated natural gas vehicles as eligible technology, if there is a supply of renewable methane covering at least 10%. This percentage includes an additional 5% to offset the increase of GHG emissions of the Page 14 of 20

15 dedicated natural gas vehicles due to a lower energy efficiency compared to diesel vehicles. A stakeholder disagreed with the figure of the additional 5%, since the energy efficiency losses could reach 20% and 30%, and asked about the sources used to ground that figure. JRC replied that it comes from two reports recently published: one from the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership and Cenex and Atkins (references in the Technical report). They gather the results of tests carried out on natural gas trucks under different duty cycles. In this regard, the stakeholder pointed out that the duty cycles of trucks are not comparable to buses, so better sources should be used to come up with the correct value. JRC asked the stakeholder to provide other sources of information to revise the figure proposed. Another stakeholder highlighted that the climate efficiency was more important than energy efficiency and recommended that the percentage should remain based on GHG emissions reduction. Also, the reason to propose such low percentages was questioned, given that 100% of renewable methane is feasible. JRC explained that the criterion proposal sets a minimum of 5% of GHG emissions reduction for the technologies to be eligible. Following that logic, the dedicated natural gas vehicles need a supply of 10% of renewable methane to compensate the increase of GHG emissions (estimated as 5%) and fulfil the minimum 5%. JRC agreed that higher percentages are possible, but if proposed the coherence of the criterion would be lost. On this issue, another stakeholder supported the figures proposed by JRC, and indicated that they match the percentages of biomethane provided by the natural gas grids of some cities. Distinction between duty cycles of buses Another issue raised by a stakeholder was the absence of a list of technologies for inter-city buses (also called suburb buses or class 2 buses). This duty cycle is representative of those networks that link several municipalities close to each other, and they are quite common in Sweden, for example. The eligible technologies would be in between city buses and coaches, meaning that hybrid vehicles would be in the list of inter-city buses. JRC explained that no information had been found for intercity buses and they were proposed to be covered by the list of technologies for coaches. JRC asked for more data to produce a specific list for inter-city buses. Eligible technologies A stakeholder proposed to include other energy recovery systems than hybridisation, for example waste heat recovery systems, as eligible technology. Besides, the stakeholder indicated that hybrid vehicles are improving their performance at steady speed, and they should be part of the eligible technologies for coaches. JRC asked for information about these proposals and will evaluate their potential to be part of the lists. Another stakeholder requested a further clarification on the technology "energy software management optimisation". JRC will consult expert colleagues and will provide a clear description of this technology. Application of the criterion in real practice There were some doubts about how the criterion would work out in practice, given that the different technologies may compete in the same call for tenders. JRC explained that the calls for tenders often specify the technology to be purchased, so a fuel cell vehicle would not compete with a hybrid Page 15 of 20

16 vehicle, for example. In those situations, the criterion text would be meant to guide the contracting authority in their purchase choice. VECTO Finally, a stakeholder questioned why the criterion was not based on VECTO. JRC replied that VECTO was not yet sufficiently implemented to allow producing the needed thresholds. However, the next revision of the criterion will be certainly based on VECTO. Air pollutant emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Air pollutant emissions. A stakeholder had doubts about the pollutants covered by the criterion on improved air pollutant emissions performance. It was not clear whether it just refers to the performance on PM and NOx emissions or it covers all the pollutants limited by Euro standards. The award criterion would require also a better definition of the percentage of reduction that could be deemed significant to allocate the points. Exhaust pipe location and auxiliaries JRC presented the criteria proposal for Exhaust pipe location and auxiliaries. A stakeholder argued that the architecture of the buses is always the same regardless the side of the driver's seat, meaning the exhaust pipe is always located at the rear-left side. Therefore, this criterion would not be feasible for those buses with the driver's seat at the right. JRC will revise the wording of the criterion. Common criteria for vehicle categories JRC presented the criteria proposal for Common criteria for vehicle categories. Vehicle noise A stakeholder indicated that, according to their experience, the phase 3 was very difficult to be fulfilled together with the NOx emissions limits. For this reason, the market availability of compliant vehicles may be very low or close to zero. JRC replied that the criterion is based on a report from TNO which indicated that the needed technology was available in Another stakeholder highlighted that electric vehicles must be able to comply with the thresholds set by phase 3. It was also suggested to include the noise levels inside the bus. Criteria withdrawn JRC presented the Criteria withdrawn. Page 16 of 20

17 A stakeholder asked whether there should be criterion to ensure that the charging infrastructure complies with the quality standards. JRC replied that the UITP is working to provide guidance on this issue to public procurers. Page 17 of 20

18 4 th interactive webinar Category 4 and 6 bus services and waste collection services 14 June Agenda AGENDA SCHEDULE Start of the webinar 09:30 1. Opening and welcome Tour-de-table checking audio connections Short introduction Technological options to reduce GHG emissions - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by Air pollutant emissions - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 4. Noise emissions - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 5. New vehicles - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by discussion and feedback from participants 6. Route optimisation - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 7. Common criteria for service categories - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by 8. Criteria withdrawn - presentation of the criteria by JRC, followed by Next steps - Wrap up of the webinar Page 18 of 20

19 List of participants Surname Name Affiliation Gama Caldas Miguel European Commission - JRC Karl Marcel MAN T&B Kaukewitsch Robert European Commission - DG ENV Le Petit Yoann T&E Lysakowska Sandra European Commission - DG MOVE Malm Nora Backer Difi Niclós Ferreras Ester Ministry of Finance and Civil Service (Spain) Pop Adriana ACEA Rodríguez Quintero Rocío European Commission - JRC Vidal-Abarca Garrido Candela European Commission - JRC Witkamp Bert AVERE Minutes GHG emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for GHG emissions. A stakeholder asked about the rationale of the percentages proposed for the fleet providing public services (12% core and 25% comprehensive). JRC replied that they are based on the usual lifetime of these vehicles, which range from 12 to 15 years. This means a replacement rate of 8 6%. The core criterion sets a percentage a little above this average rate and the comprehensive doubles the value. It was also recommended to clarify how the different technology classes A, B and C are taken into account in the award criterion for special purpose and non-schedule transport services. Air pollutants emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Air pollutants. No comments Noise emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for Noise emissions. No comments New vehicles JRC presented the criteria proposal for New vehicles. Page 19 of 20

20 No comments Route optimisation JRC presented the criteria proposal for Route optimisation. No comments, JRC asked for any relevant information that could help to improve the criterion. Common criteria for service categories JRC presented the criteria proposal for Common criteria for service categories. Competences of tenderer and staff training It was recommended to clarify which types of services are covered by the mandatory training on ecodriving set by the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence. Criteria withdrawn JRC presented the Criteria withdrawn. A stakeholder disagreed with the withdrawal of the battery criteria, since they are a crucial element in the total cost of ownership of the electric vehicles. It was highlighted that all contracts require a minimum warranty of the batteries. The stakeholder also suggested to consult the outcomes of the ZEEUS project to get more information about this issue. JRC replied that a report released from ZEEUS project had been consulted for this proposal and it showed that the warranties of the batteries widely vary depending on the technology and the materials, so it was quite difficult to set a specific threshold as for cars and vans. It is acknowledged the compliance with service performance requirements need the adoption of warranty contracts between the contractor and the battery supplier. JRC will study the possibility to include some information to help public procurers to set the terms of the warranty in their call for tenders. Conclusions and next steps Wrap of the webinars JRC explained the next steps: o o o The presentation to be made available on Batis. The minutes and presentation to be circulated within 2 weeks. Comments can be made by Batis until 31 July. JRC thanked all participants for their contributions. Page 20 of 20