XXXXX
© Ricardo plc 2013
Gena Gibson
30th April 2013
Car CO2 labelling in Europe
© Ricardo plc 2013
Overview
Based on a study by AEA for the European Commission in 2012
Focussing on…
• Format of the labe...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Most Member States have voluntarily
developed labels based on the EU energy label
Format Member State R...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Recommendations on choosing label design
Harmonise the design of the car
CO2 label to reflect the EU
En...
© Ricardo plc 2013
What are the ratings based on? Definitions of
absolute and relative comparison
Absolute

Relative

Ca...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Most Member States use absolute ratings*
Absolute

Relative

1. Belgium,
2. Denmark,
3. France,
4. Ro...
© Ricardo plc 2013
However, there are pros and cons for each
option
Advantages Disadvantages
Absolute
 Simple to administ...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Recommendations on choosing absolute or
relative labelling:
• We are more convinced by the arguments in...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Recommendations on choosing absolute or
relative labelling:
• We are more convinced by the arguments in...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Questions?
© Ricardo plc 2013
Annex: Examples of labels
Presentation of rating scale
(blue background)
Mandatory information
(in blac...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Belgium
CO2 information presented in
scaled and coloured format
Absolute label
7 bands A to G
Fuel cons...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Denmark
Fuel consumption
presented in EU Energy
Labelling-style format
Absolute label
7 bands – A to G
...
© Ricardo plc 2013
France
CO2 information
presented in EU
Energy Labelling-
style format
Absolute label
7 bands – A to G
C...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Germany
CO2 information
presented in EU
Energy Labelling-
style format
Relative label
8 bands A+ to G
(...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Hungary
Vehicle make and
model information
Fuel consumption in
litre/100km
CO2 emissions in g/km
© Ricardo plc 2013
Romania
CO2 information
presented in EU
Energy Labelling-
style format
Absolute label
7 bands A to G
CO...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Spain
CO2 information
presented in EU
Energy Labelling-
style format
Relative label
7 bands A to G
CO2 ...
© Ricardo plc 2013
UK
CO2 information
presented in EU Energy
Labelling-style format
Absolute label
7 bands A to M
Fuel con...
© Ricardo plc 2013
Gena Gibson
Senior Consultant
gena.gibson@ricardo-aea.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Car CO2 labelling - overview and best practice

794 views

Published on

Presentation to the IEA / Global Fuel Economy Initiative. This workshop debated the optimum methodology to calculate a clean vehicle score. The scoring system debated during this workshop is intended to be the backbone of the upcoming Green Global NCAP campaign. This campaign will help set an independent yet respected landmark for an agreed definition of what is a clean vehicle and how to classify clean vehicles, based on the vehicle efficiency and the tailpipe emissions. Presentation given by Gena Gibson, senior consultant at Ricardo-AEA

Published in: Automotive, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
794
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The main argument in favour of an absolute label is that it is less confusing for consumers, and ensures that a car with a better rating would always be more fuel efficient. The main argument in favour of a relative approach is that they allow consumers to better compare similar types of cars, e.g. within car classes, as the relative approach can provide a wider range of categorisations for similar cars. Additionally, some stakeholders argued that basing a relative approach on a car’s weight meant that the approach taken for the label was consistent with that which is taken by the passenger car CO2 Regulation, which is also weight-based.
  • Note: these are for information only – I do not intend to talk through these slides unless someone asks a specific question
  • Car CO2 labelling - overview and best practice

    1. 1. XXXXX © Ricardo plc 2013 Gena Gibson 30th April 2013 Car CO2 labelling in Europe
    2. 2. © Ricardo plc 2013 Overview Based on a study by AEA for the European Commission in 2012 Focussing on… • Format of the label & • Basis for ratings
    3. 3. © Ricardo plc 2013 Most Member States have voluntarily developed labels based on the EU energy label Format Member State Rating categories Example Based on EU Energy label Denmark, France, Romania, Spain, Netherlands, Finland A-G categories Germany A+ to G UK A-N categories (2 per band) Own style Belgium A-G categories Austria Continuous comparative label Hungary Italy Sweden List format N/A
    4. 4. © Ricardo plc 2013 Recommendations on choosing label design Harmonise the design of the car CO2 label to reflect the EU Energy Label…  Improving consumer recognition  Reducing risk of confusion  Building on existing work … Use a closed system (i.e. always limited to 7 bands)  Avoids confusion over differences between A, A+, A++ etc.  Periodic reviews to align with technological progress
    5. 5. © Ricardo plc 2013 What are the ratings based on? Definitions of absolute and relative comparison Absolute  Relative  Cars are rated according to the actual CO2 emissions compared to the entire range of potential models. Hence, a car with low emissions would be in category “A” no matter what its size or type, while a car in category “G” would have high emissions, independent of its size or type. Compares cars within the same type or class, i.e. a large car can receive an “A” rating if it is the best performing of its type (even if its absolute emissions are high)
    6. 6. © Ricardo plc 2013 Most Member States use absolute ratings* Absolute  Relative  1. Belgium, 2. Denmark, 3. France, 4. Romania, 5. UK 6. Finland, 7. Austria 1. Germany (weight), 2. Spain (footprint) 3. Netherlands (CO2 performance) * Based on AEA(2012) “Report on the implementation of Directive 1999/94/EC” and European Parliament (2010) “Study on consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions of new passenger cars”, .
    7. 7. © Ricardo plc 2013 However, there are pros and cons for each option Advantages Disadvantages Absolute  Simple to administer;  Easy to understand;  Directly encourages consumers to buy cars with fewer emissions  Erodes differences between the ratings assigned to similar cars Relative  Enables comparison of cars with similar characteristics;  Larger cars do not automatically fall into the worst classes  Difficult to agree on the method;  Harder for consumers to understand;  Gives no incentive for downsizing within the complete car fleet;  Manufacturers could manipulate car characteristics to achieve a better rating without improving CO2 performance e.g. by increasing weight in a weight- related system
    8. 8. © Ricardo plc 2013 Recommendations on choosing absolute or relative labelling: • We are more convinced by the arguments in favour of an absolute label over those in favour of a relative label, • But providing consumers with information on best (and worst) in class could be beneficial… • Therefore, a composite label could be used, which shows absolute ratings and “best and worst in class”
    9. 9. © Ricardo plc 2013 Recommendations on choosing absolute or relative labelling: • We are more convinced by the arguments in favour of an absolute label over those in favour of a relative label, • But providing consumers with information on best (and worst) in class could be beneficial… • Therefore, a composite label could be used, which shows absolute ratings and “best and worst in class”
    10. 10. © Ricardo plc 2013 Questions?
    11. 11. © Ricardo plc 2013 Annex: Examples of labels Presentation of rating scale (blue background) Mandatory information (in black) Information that exceeds minimum requirements (in red)
    12. 12. © Ricardo plc 2013 Belgium CO2 information presented in scaled and coloured format Absolute label 7 bands A to G Fuel consumption in litre/100km CO2 emissions in g/km Vehicle make and model information
    13. 13. © Ricardo plc 2013 Denmark Fuel consumption presented in EU Energy Labelling-style format Absolute label 7 bands – A to G Euro NCAP star rating Economic running costs: •Annual road tax •Typical fuel costs for 20,000 kmInformation on whether diesel cars have particle trap (if not, required to pay additional tax) Fuel consumption in km/litre CO2 emissions in g/km Vehicle make and model information
    14. 14. © Ricardo plc 2013 France CO2 information presented in EU Energy Labelling- style format Absolute label 7 bands – A to G CO2 in g/km Fuel consumption in litres/100 km Vehicle make and model information
    15. 15. © Ricardo plc 2013 Germany CO2 information presented in EU Energy Labelling- style format Relative label 8 bands A+ to G (currently) Economic running costs: •Annual road tax •Typical energy costs (fuel and electricity) CO2 in g/km Fuel consumption in litres/100 km (natural gas or biogas in kg/100km) Power consumption pure electric and hybrid electric vehicles (external recharge) in kWh/100km Vehicle make and model information
    16. 16. © Ricardo plc 2013 Hungary Vehicle make and model information Fuel consumption in litre/100km CO2 emissions in g/km
    17. 17. © Ricardo plc 2013 Romania CO2 information presented in EU Energy Labelling- style format Absolute label 7 bands A to G CO2 in g/km Fuel consumption in litres/100 km Vehicle make and model information
    18. 18. © Ricardo plc 2013 Spain CO2 information presented in EU Energy Labelling- style format Relative label 7 bands A to G CO2 in g/km Fuel consumption in litres/100 km and km/litre Vehicle make and model information
    19. 19. © Ricardo plc 2013 UK CO2 information presented in EU Energy Labelling-style format Absolute label 7 bands A to M Fuel consumption in litres/100 km and miles/gallon CO2 in g/km Economic running costs: •Annual road tax •Typical fuel costs for 12,000 miles Vehicle make and model information
    20. 20. © Ricardo plc 2013 Gena Gibson Senior Consultant gena.gibson@ricardo-aea.com

    ×