1.6. Formulación de los objetivos de la investigación
2.1.15. Indicadores:
Measure B considers a stricter version of the Euro standards 5/6/VI (compared to 43.
Measures A and A2) requiring a higher percentage reductions in NOX and PM from
vehicles. This version of the Euro standards applies to both diesel and petrol LDVs and to diesel HDVs.
The percentage reduction in NO
44. X and PM proposed by this measure are shown
below:
• 50% reduction in NO
X from new petrol LDVs by 2010;•
40% reduction in NOX from new diesel LDVs in 2010;• 68% reduction in NO
X from all new diesel LDVs in 2015;•
75% reduction in NOX for new HDVs; andThe initial reduction in NO
45. X for LDVs is assumed to apply from 2010 (Euro 5), the tighter
NOx for diesel LDVs from 2015 (Euro 6). The measure is assumed to be introduced in
2013 for HDVs (Euro VI). As this measure is in the form of a European regulation it is assumed to apply uniformly across UK and across Europe.
Benefits of Measure B
Similar to Measure A the reduction in emissions for this measure were estimated by 46.
Netcen6 by considering the difference in emission from the baseline when penetrating the existing fleet with the Euro 5/6/VI vehicles.
Measure B also assumes the use of technologies which affect the fuel economies of 47.
vehicles compared to an equivalent new Euro 4/V vehicle. There will be changes in carbon emission based on these changes in fuel economies of vehicles. The negative impact on fuel economies causes less vehicle kilometres to be driven as described in Box 3.1. The impact on the fuel economies for the different vehicle types of this measure is presented in the Table 3.15 below.
Table 3.15: Fuel economy assumptions by vehicle type for Measure B
Vehicle Type Impact on fuel economy for
vehicles entering the fleet in 2010 – 2014
Impact on fuel economy for vehicles entering the fleet in 2015 Diesel Car – 5% – 5% Petrol Car 0% 0% Diesel LGV – 5% – 5% Petrol LGV 0% 0% Articulated HGV – 9% – 9% Rigid HGV – 9% – 9%
Similar to Measure A, the air quality benefits do not include the rebound effects 48.
on vehicle kilometres from the overall changes in fuel economies that this measure causes.
Emissions from all relevant vehicle types have been taken from the National 49.
Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) and the relevant forecast of future changes in emissions derived.
Detailed concentration mapping of the NO
50. X and PM10 emissions, resulting secondary
particulate matter concentrations and resulting ozone concentrations was carried out in order to calculate the benefits of this measure (the methodology for the mapping has been described in more detail in Chapter 2 and the consultation document). The impact on concentrations due to this measure is presented in Table 3.16 below. 6 Stedman et al (2006) ‘Projections of Air Quality in the UK for Additional Measures Scenarios for the 2006 Review of the Air Quality
Strategy’, National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, AEA Technology, National Environmental Technology Centre. Report AEAT/ ENV/R/1986.
Table 3.16: Change in concentrations by implementing Measure B for the UK disaggregated by countrya
Country Pollutant Concentration changes relative to the baseline (µg.m-3)b
2010 2015 2020 England PM10 (0.073) (0.484) (0.800) NO2 (0.177) (1.532) (2.858) Ozone 0.013 – 0.125 0.107 – 1.096 0.156 – 1.888 Northern Ireland PM10 (0.030) (0.200) (0.331) NO2 (0.113) (0.895) (1.413) Ozone 0.006 –0.033 0.018 – 0.194 0.106 – 0.133 Scotland PM10 (0.046) (0.299) (0.492) NO2 (0.143) (1.250) (2.216) Ozone 0.005 – 0.057 0.048 – 0.438 0.006 – 0.550 Wales PM10 (0.042) (0.293) (0.488) NO2 (0.129) (1.259) (2.228) Ozone 0.008 – 0.075 0.075 – 0.616 0.010 – 0.849 UK PM10 (0.068) (0.450) (0.746) NO2 (0.170) (1.476) (2.731) Ozone 0.012 – 0.144 0.098 – 0.990 0.128 – 1.672
a Negative figures in brackets
b Ozone concentration changes shown as a range incorporating results assuming both a zero threshold
and a 50ppb threshold. PM10 concentrations are presented in (µg.m–3, gravimetric).
The quantified health and non-health benefits have been calculated from the resulting 51.
concentrations using the methodology described in Chapter 2.
Measure B will have a long term impact as it is assumed that all future vehicles will 52.
emit less NOX and PM10. Hence, the benefit analysis is calculated on the assumption of
a 100 year sustained pollution reduction. As Measure B is assumed to be a long term measure the 2020 concentrations are assumed to persist from 2010 to 2109 and the benefits are calculated on that basis. As explained in the benefits section of Measure A estimating benefits this simplified method leads to an overestimating of benefits. Table 3.17 illustrates the health impacts generated by the above changes in 53.
Due to the overall negative impact on the fuel economy by the fuel penalties described 54.
above there are negative carbon impacts due to the technology. This is also shown in Table 3.17 below.
Table 3.17: Quantified impacts of implementing Measure Ba
PM life years saved (’000s) – 6% (2010 – 2109)
PM – RHA
(2020 p.a.) PM – CHA (2020 p.a.) Ozone mortality
(2020 p.a.)
Ozone RHA
(2020 p.a.) Carbon (’000s tonnes p.a.)
(2020) 1,581 – 3,017 262 263 (579) – (44) (668) – (51) (939)
a Data presented in the table in brackets represents a negative impact – for ozone impacts this reflects
the increase in population weighted ozone concentrations presented in the previous table.
These benefits have then been monetised using the methodology described in Chapter 55.
2 and discounted to generate a Present Value (PV) in 2005 prices of the different impacts. This present value has then been annualised. The monetary values can be seen in Table 3.18 below. These monetised impacts include the impacts on crop yields and damage to buildings and materials avoided due to the reduction in concentrations. Table 3.18: Annual present value of impacts of implementing Measure B (£millions)a
PM life years saved – 6%
PM –
RHA PM – CHA OzoneMortality OzoneRHA Carbon Crops Buildings &
materials 669 – 1,571 1 – 4 1 – 4 (8) – (0.21) (10) – (0.17) (86) 2 2
a Numbers in brackets represent negative values.
Costs of Measure B
Similar to Measure A, the costs of this measure are driven primarily by the resource 56.
costs of the incremental technologies (beyond Euro 4/V) that have to be implemented to achieve the required emission reductions. Since the emission requirements are more stringent for this measure, the technology required is more expensive. The other costs of this measure include the impacts of the changes in fuel economies of vehicles compared to Euro 4/V vehicles, which include the changes in resource costs of fuel, as well as the welfare impacts of changes in the vehicle kilometres travelled due to changes in fuel economy.
•
Technology costs: The unit costs of technology per vehicle type required to achieve the concentration reductions shown in Table 3.16 above are shown in Table 3.19 below. The costs presented in Table 3.19 below are the resource costs per unit which the producers have to incur when producing the equipments. It is assumed that these technologies are fitted to new Euro 4 LDVs and Euro V HDVs at the time of manufacture to make them compliant with the Euro 5/6/VI regulation. The HGV technology costs are presented as a range reflecting the uncertainly in the estimates of resource costs of the equipment.Table 3.19: Resource costs per unit of technology for Measure B (2005 prices)
Vehicle Type Type of Technology Costs per vehicle
entering the fleet between
(2010 – 2014)
Costs per vehicle entering the fleet after 2015 Diesel cars Diesel Particulate Filters
+ Selective Catalytic Reduction or Lean NOx
Traps
£230 £614
Petrol cars Variable Valve Timing enabling Internal EGR
£50 £50
Diesel LGVs Diesel Particulate Filters + Selective Catalytic Reduction or Lean NOx
Traps
£340 £1,106
Petrol LGVs Variable Valve Timing enabling Internal EGR
£50 £50
Articulated HGVs Diesel Particulate Filters + Selective Catalytic Reduction
£2,042 – £2,600 £2,042 – £2,600
Rigid HGVs Diesel Particulate Filters + Selective Catalytic Reduction
£868 – £1,800 £868 – £1,800
Note: For LDVs SCR or LNT is assumed for 2015 onwards only.
•
Resource cost of fuel: Due to the fact that the introduction of these technologies will have an impact on their fuel economy, the Euro 5/6/VI compliant vehicles will use more or less fuel than the Euro 4/V vehicles based on the fuel penalties of the particular Euro 5/6/VI vehicle type. The change in resource costs of the fuel are valued using the latest DTI fuel projections.•
Welfare impacts of the changes in fuel economies: This measure also attempts to estimate the welfare impacts due to the changes in fuel economies and the resulting loss/gain in the vehicle kilometres travelled. Further explanation of welfare effects are given in Box 3.1.In order to maintain comparability between the cost and benefit estimation, the impacts 57.
(increased technology costs, change in fuel used and rebound kilometres travelled) of the measure in 2020 are assumed to apply each year from 2020 onwards to 2109. The costs (technology costs, welfare costs and resource costs of fuel) accrued before 2020 are estimated according to the cost methodology described for Measure A.
The costs for each vehicle type have been calculated according to the methodology 58.
described above and the total costs of the measure have been estimated by summing across all vehicle types. The total costs of the implementation of this measure in the UK are presented in Table 3.20 below. The total costs include the annualised technology costs, the resource costs of the measure as well as the welfare impacts due to the rebound effect. The costs are discounted using the standard Green Book discount rate and annualised over the period between the implementation date for each vehicle type and 2109.
Table 3.20: Costs of implementing Measure B in the UK in 2005 prices (£millions)
Annualised Technology Costs Annualised Resource cost of extra fuel consumed Annualised Welfare impact due to rebound effect Annual PV of Costs 731 – 751 250 2 983 – 1,003
Cost and benefits of Measure B
Table 3.21 below presents the annual Net Present Value (NPV) of Measure B, which is 59.
the annual benefits minus the annual costs of Measure B. This is based on a 6% hazard rate reduction, for chronic mortality effects, and a range in possible lag times (0 or 40 years lag), as explained in Chapter 2.
Table 3.21: Annual costs and benefits of implementing Measure B in the UK (£millions)a
Annual PV of Costs Annual PV of Benefits Annual NPV
983 – 1,003 571 – 1,497 (432) – 514
a Numbers in brackets represent negative values.
The results in Table 3.21 above indicate that the costs outweigh the benefits of 60.
Measure B when the 6% hazard rate is used for the 40 year lag scenario. However for the no-lag scenario, the benefits significantly outweigh the costs.The latest statements from COMEAP suggest that, although evidence was limited, the Committee’s judgement tends towards a greater proportion of the effect occurring in the years sooner after the pollution reduction rather than later. This would mean that the effect is more likely to be nearer the no lag result.