EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE FOR THE JAPAN CLEAN AIR PROGRAMME

1. EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE FORTHE JAPAN CLEAN AIR PROGRAMME A Workshop Tokyo 4-5 November 1998 Sustainable Environment Consultants

2. Day 1 Introduction European Auto-Oil Programme development Integrated evaluation framework Air quality Auto-Oil I analytic process Economic methodology Auto-Oil II overview Auto-Oil II air quality Day 2 Modelling and Optimisation Non technical and local measures Political outcome of AOPI. Cost Benefit analysis Summary and conclusions Identification of topics requiring further information for JCAP Workshop programme

3. EUROPEAN AUTO-OIL PROGRAMMESORIGINS

4. Evolution of Car Emission Standards European Standards 100 80 Japanese Standards 60 % of Base (HC, CO/10, NOx) Normalised to Uncontrolled Levels 40 EEC 5th (Optional) Appendix 23 (83 US) 20 U.S.. Standards 0 1986 1966 1982 1970 1974 1990 1978 Model Year

5. Evolution of Car Emission Standards (Cont’d) 100 European Standards 80 Japanese Standards Tier I 60 % of Base (HC, CO/10, NOx) Normalised to 83 U.S. Levels Euro I TLEV 40 LEV U.S. Standards 20 Euro II ULEV 0 1990 1996 1992 1998 2000 1994 Model Year

6. By Early 1990s • Considerable reductions in motor vehicle emissions over more than 20 years • Traffic growth led to concern over vehicle emissions • Best available technology at reasonable cost • How much more emission reduction needed? • What other measures should be considered?

7. European Symposium: Auto Emissions 2000 • September 1992 • Participants included European Commission, motor and oil industries, environmental and motoring organisations, researchers, member states • Conclusion - need for a broader new framework (AOPI)

8. Auto-Oil I - Structure

9. Article 4 Directive 94/12/EC Commission to take the following approach in developing year 2000 standards: • the measures will produce effects to meet the requirements of the Community’s air quality criteria • cost effectiveness assessment • the measures shall be proportional and reasonable

10. 1st Auto-Oil Programme (AOPI) • European Programme on Emissions, Fuels and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) • Air Quality Modelling • Cost-effectiveness Study

11. EPEFE • Joint motor and oil industry research programme • Commission participated in agreeing parameters to be studied • 12 gasolines • 16 diesels • 35 light duty vehicles (16 gasoline; 19 diesel) • 5 heavy duty diesel engines

12. EPEFE (Cont’d) • Produced equations linking fuel parameters to emissions • Undertook speciation of HC emissions for air quality modelling

13. Air quality Modelling • Cities: • carbon monoxide, benzene, nitrogen dioxide • EU for regional ozone • Concentrations forecast for year 2010 • Air quality targets agreed • Gap between 2010 air quality and targets identified • Emission reduction targets agreed

14. Cost Effectiveness Study • Identify optimal mix of the following policy measures: • Vehicle Technology • Fuel Quality • Inspection and Maintenance • Non-technical Measures

15. INTEGRATED EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

16. Framework requirements • Scope • pollutants • space • time • economic sectors • Objectives • environmental • economic • Available policy measures and application period

17. Analytic schema : physical process and costs

18. Objectives To develop strategy to meet air quality standards across EU at least cost Focus on air quality standards in 2010, but period to 2020 to be considered Strategy least cost, but also practicable in wider economic, social and political terms Strategy consistent with other environmental objectives Scope Pollutants - NOx, CO, VOCs, PM, benzene, ozone, (SO2, CO2) All 15 EU countries Pollution emission from transport and stationary sectors to be considered All emission control instruments and measures for transport to be considered Auto-Oil programmes: objectives and scope

19. Possible objectives, constraints and implications A. Minimise the Present Value of abatement costs so as to meet physical environmental targets (Objective used in Auto-Oil programmes 1 and 2) • Ensures environmental targets will be met • Gives no value to overshoot of targets • Does not require impact weighting B. Minimise Discounted Cost/Impact ratio (whilst meeting physical environmental targets?) • Ensures environmental targets will be met • Gives more weight to short term impact reduction • Requires impact weighting C. Minimise the Net Present Value of costs due to damage and those due to abatement • This is a CBA and requires an assessment of the benefits of reducing environmental impacts • Requires a full analysis of the social costs of pollution • Will give more weight to short term costs • Does not guarantee that physical environmental targets will be met, may lead to over or under ‘achievement’ • Does not require impact weighting

20. Addressing Time Issues in Auto-Oil • How to assign relative value to the short and long term alleviation of environmental impacts? • How can physical impacts be compared with costs? • How can one environmental impact be weighed against another?

21. Emission profiles • Observations • Fuels and I&M have bigger short term reduction • Vehicle packages have bigger long term reduction • If both packages have same effect in 2010, then fuel will have more effect before 2010, and vehicle packages more after2010 • 11 year life typical EU, 20 year typical Madrid/Milan

22. The time problem illustrated • For pollutant 1 • 2000 to 2010 • Both instruments allow targets to be achieved • Instrument 1 reduces total emission over the period by 55% more than 2. • 2000 to 2020 • Instrument 1 reduces total emission over the period by the same as 2. • 2010 to 2020 • Instrument 2 reduces emission by more than 1 • Instrument 2 allows targets to be achieved, 1 does not. • For pollutant 2 • 2000 to2010 • Both instruments allow targets to be achieved • Instrument 1 reduces integrated total emission by 65% more than 2. • 2000 to 2020 • Neither instrument allows targets to be reached.

23. Potential policy instruments

24. Issues for discussion • Years and time periods set for • air quality objectives • economic evaluation • Value of air quality improvement in other years • Emission control measures

25. AUTO-OIL I PROGRAMMEAIR QUALITY MODELLING

26. Overview of Process • Model air quality situation today (1990) • Validate modelling results against measurements • Forecast change in emissions as result of already agreed measures • Forecast future air quality (2010) • Identify gaps between future air quality and targets

27. Time and space issue

28. Representation with cities

29. Schematic of Air Quality Modelling Air Quality 100 80 60 Necessary improvement 40 Target 20 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

30. Air Quality Modelling - Cities • Athens, Greece • Cologne, Germany • London, England • Lyons, France • Madrid, Spain • Milan, Italy • The Hague, Netherlands

31. Air Quality Modelling - Pollutants • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Benzene (C6H6) • Ozone (O3) • Particulate Matter (PM)

32. Air Quality Targets

33. City Air Quality Modelling • Pollutants assumed to be inert • 9 source categories • 6 road transport • small, medium and large stationary sources • Emissions from each source modelled separately • Air quality derived from addition of contributions from the 9 sources

34. City Air Quality Modelling (Cont’d) • Only NOx modelled • Several models used - different models best for different cities. • Best model chosen for deriving emission reduction target • Grid of 2500 2x2km grids covering area 100km x 100km. 50 grids with highest concentrations investigated.

35. City Air Quality Modelling (Cont’d) • CO and Benzene concentrations calculated from CO/NOx, and Benzene/NOx ratios for different emission sources. • Compliance with air quality targets based on highest concentration in city • NO2air quality targets converted into NOx target using air quality data

36. NOx Target • Less severe target: • 98th percentile of 200 g/m3 NO2 equivalent to an annual mean of 79 g/m3 NO2 • this is equivalent to 183g/m3 NOx • More severe target: • 98th percentile of 93 g/m3 is equivalent to an annual mean of 37 g/m3 NO2 • this is equivalent to 66 g/m3 NOx

37. City Air Quality Modelling Results • Carbon monoxide • All cities will meet the targets • Benzene • All cities will meet the less and more severe targets • The very severe target will not be met in four cities • Nitrogen Oxides • the more severe target is only met in one of the seven cities

38. NOx Emission Reduction Targets

39. Emission Reduction Targets • Assumes: • that all sectors reduce emissions by an equal amount • no account taken of cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions in other sectors • Based on worst grid in city

40. Particulate Matter • No modelling undertaken • Insufficient emission data • Insufficient monitoring data to validate results • Inadequate models • Emission reduction target derived from • Current but very limited monitoring data • Crude estimate of reductions required to meet target • Agreement between Auto Oil partners

41. Ozone Targets

42. Regional Ozone Modelling • EMEP model • Used for the UNECE Protocol on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution • Now being used for EU ozone strategy • Scenario approach used to define emission reduction targets

43. Regional Ozone Modelling (Cont’d) • Scenario approach • zero road transport NOx emissions • zero road transport VOC emissions • zero road transport NOx and VOC emissions • 20%/40%  in stationary VOC emissions • 40%  in stationary NOx + VOC, and 20%  in road transport NOx+VOC emissions from 2010 basecase • 60%  in stationary NOx + VOC, and 40%  in road transport NOx+VOC emissions from 2010 basecase

44. Regional Ozone Modelling (Cont’d) • Under no scenario were the air quality targets met everywhere in Europe. • For example: under zero road transport emissions 24% of the land cover of the EU exceeds the 8-hour average target (180 g/m3) in 2010 • Emission reduction target of 70% for NOx and VOC from 1990 levels was agreed by Auto Oil Partners

45. Issues for Discussion • What pollutants are included in the Japanese Clean Air Programme? • How is air quality being modelled? • How are the models being validated? • How are the air quality targets being set? • Are there other environmental targets (e.g. CO2)? • How are the air quality targets being translated into targets for the optimisation?

46. AUTO-OIL I:PROCESS AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES SENCO

47. Executive Legislature Judiciary Council of Ministers comprising the Foreign Minister of each of the EU member states European Parliament comprising MEPs directly elected by the voters of the EU European Court of Justice European Commission the civil service of the EU, headed by Commissioners (political appointees) and Directors General (non-political) Directives are the laws of the EU Drafted by the Commission, under direction from the Council of Ministers, approved by the European Parliament, enforced by Member States, and interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

48. Seven cities air quality model $ Cost effectiveness analysis EPEFE Elements of the European Auto Oil Programme

49. Reduction in NOx emissions required to meet air quality in 7 European cities by 2010 % reduction

50. Parameters of the cost effectiveness study • to focus on measures which could be introduced by the year 2000 • to measure their effects on emissions for the target year 2010