Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

The impact of the EU car CO2 regulation on the energy system

and the role of electro-mobility to achieve transport decarbonisation
Christian Thiel a,n,1, Wouter Nijs a,1, Sofia Simoes a,1, Johannes Schmidt b, Arnold van Zyl c,
Erwin Schmid b
a
Institute for Energy and Transport, Joint Research Centre – European Commission, Italy and The Netherlands
b
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria
c
Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University (DHBW), Stuttgart, Germany

H I G H L I G H T S

Car CO2 regulation effective policy to reduce transport CO2 emissions.

Learning rate above 12.5% can lead to sharp increase in electric vehicle deployment.

Electric vehicles can foster the deployment of variable renewable electricity.

Policies for other modes needed to curb transport CO2 growth.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We analyse the impact of the current and an alternative stricter EU CO2 car legislation on transport
Received 30 November 2015 related CO2 emissions, on the uptake of electric vehicles (EV), on the reduction of oil consumption, and
Received in revised form on total energy system costs beyond 2020. We apply a TIMES based energy system model for Europe.
3 May 2016
Results for 2030 show that a stricter target of 70 g CO2/km for cars could reduce total transport CO2
Accepted 24 May 2016
Available online 4 June 2016
emissions by 5% and oil dependence by more than 2% compared to the current legislation. The stricter
regulatory CO2 car target is met by a deployment of more efficient internal combustion engine cars and
Keywords: higher shares of EV Total system costs increase by less than 1%. The analysis indicates that EV deploy-
Energy system model ment and the decarbonisation of the power system including higher shares of variable renewables can be
Electro-mobility
synergistic. Our sensitivity analysis shows that the deployment of EV would sharply increase between
Road transport decarbonisation
2020 and 2030 at learning rates above 12.5%, reaching shares above 30% in 2030. Finally, the study
EU car CO2 regulation
highlights that, besides legislating cars, policies for other transport sectors and modes are needed to curb
transport related CO2 emission growth by 2030.
& 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction the EU (by 19%) when comparing 2013 to the baseline year 1990
(Eurostat, 2016). Moreover, passenger car transport is expected to
Significant improvements in the specific fuel consumption of further grow over the next decades (European Commission, 2013a).
passenger cars in the EU (European Union) have been achieved over Therefore, the EU recently adopted a CO2 legislation, setting specific
the last years (Fontaras and Dilara, 2012). Nevertheless, because of the CO2 emission targets of the average new fleet at 130 g/km for 2015
growth of car transport, this has not fully translated into the same (EC, 2009a) and 95 g/km by the end of 2020 and onwards (EU, 2014a).
level of reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars in the EU. The This legislation is currently based upon type approval values and CO2
transport sector is the only sector which emissions were growing in emission measurements, done according to the New European Drive
Cycle (NEDC). Historically (up to 2005), the CO2 emissions measured
in the NEDC were in average around 15% lower than the real drive CO2
n
Correspondence to: Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy. emissions on the road. Publications indicate that this gap may have
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Thiel).
1 increased recently (Fontaras and Dilara, 2012; EEA, 2014; ICCT et al.,
The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European 2014), however the European Commission proposed a package in-
Commission. cluding new testing procedures to limit the emission gap between test

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.043
0301-4215/& 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
154 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

and real driving conditions (European Commission, 2016). Further- learning rates for EV technologies, considering recent evidence of
more, the European Commission has proposed to reduce the total increased progress in battery cost reduction (Nykvist and Nilsson,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU by 40% in 2030 over the 2015). EV in this study comprises battery electric vehicles (BEV),
1990 levels (European Commission, 2014a). plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and hydrogen fuel cell
This policy has an impact on the technological mix in the (HFC) cars.
transport sector, but also affects the overall energy sector due to The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2
the substitution of fuels: oil may be substituted by e.g. natural gas describes the data and methods applied in this analysis, Section 3
or electricity, when new technologies enter the market. In parti- describes the results while Section 4 discusses these. Section 5
cular, an increased use of electricity by car transportation may draws conclusions and highlights policy implications.
have impacts on costs and CO2 emissions in the electricity gen-
eration sector, which could trigger changes in other sectors due to
changes of relative costs of energy sources – and due to the re- 2. Methods and data
strictions of the European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). The
assessment of the impact of the CO2 car regulation policy on total This chapter describes in sub-Section 2.1 the JRC-EU-TIMES
GHG emissions in the energy sector therefore has to rely on a energy system optimisation model and in sub-Section 2.2 the
systemic approach. design of scenarios as well as the design of the sensitivity analysis.
In the past, many legislative measures and scenarios in the
transport sector were primarily analysed with tools focussing on 2.1. JRC-EU-TIMES energy system optimisation model
the transport sector only, which often use exogenous scenario
assumptions for the evolution of fuel or energy supply (Fontaras The JRC-EU-TIMES model is used for this study that focusses on
et al., 2007; Pasaoglu et al., 2012; Sorrentino et al., 2014; Thiel passenger cars and does not consider differentiated scenarios for
et al., 2014; Bauer et al., in press). A number of publications have other modes of transportation. JRC-EU-TIMES is a linear optimi-
analysed various aspects of different powertrain technologies, sation bottom-up energy system model generated with the TIMES
such as (i) well-to-wheel emissions, efficiencies, and total cost of model generator. Its objective function minimises the total energy
ownership (Thiel et al., 2010; Bishop et al., 2014; Millo et al., 2014; system costs over the entire modelling horizon. The minimisation
Waller et al., 2014), (ii) impacts on air pollution in cities (Donateo is subject to constraints, for example primary resources supply
et al., 2015), and (iii) behavioural aspects (Tran, 2012). Brouwer bounds, technical constraints, balance constraints for energy and
et al. (2013); Foley et al. (2013); Loisel et al. (2014); Verzijlbergh emissions, timing of investment, and the satisfaction of a set of
et al. (2014) study the interaction between electric vehicles and demands for the energy services of the economy. TIMES based
power supply, markets, and interconnection, but do not assess model applications are used by numerous research teams for a
impacts on the whole energy system. variety of analyses at a sector, country, region or multi-region level
Some studies have taken a systemic view into account and that require an energy system perspective. See besides the above
employed energy system optimisation models in order to analyse mentioned publications for example Vaillancourt et al. (2014),
future vehicle scenarios in the context of an overall energy dec- Daly et al. (2014) and Cayla and Maïzi (2015), or for a wider
arbonisation strategy (Ichinohe and Endo, 2006; Bahn et al., 2013; overview of recent TIMES model applications Giannakidis et al.
Anandarajah et al., 2013; Rösler et al., 2014; Seixas et al., 2015). (2015). The JRC-EU-TIMES model represents the EU28 (the 28
The use of these models has the advantage that, rather than using member states of the EU) energy system plus Switzerland, Iceland,
Norway, and the Western Balkan countries from 2005 to 2050,
prescriptive exogenous scenario assumptions, the cost-optimal
where each country is modelled as one region. It includes the
deployment of technologies is endogenously determined by the
following sectors: primary energy supply; electricity generation;
model. However, those studies have been conducted with a low
industry; buildings; agriculture; and transport (Fig. 1).
disaggregation of the vehicle technologies, which limits the cap-
As a partial equilibrium model, JRC-EU-TIMES does not model
ability of the models to fully explore the potential of the most
the economic interactions outside of the energy sector. Never-
important available low-carbon technologies in the sector. Ad-
theless, they are considered to some extent via price elasticities of
ditionally, only Rösler et al. (2014) and Seixas at al. (2015) had a
service demands. In this analysis, JRC-EU-TIMES’ demands are
look at Europe specifically, and none of the studies assessed the EU
sensitive to price changes as described in Kanudia and Regemorter
car CO2 regulation.
(2006). The price elasticity for car passenger kilometres is as-
In this exploratory study we therefore use a TIMES2 based
sumed to be 0.3 and symmetrical. A 10% increase in the en-
energy system model (Loulou et al., 2005) to analyse, how a spe-
dogenous total cost of a passenger kilometre will lead to a 3%
cific policy, the EU CO2 car legislation, can contribute towards an
decrease of this particular demand and vice versa. For cost re-
overall EU 40% GHG reduction target and how it may foster the
ductions, this feature reflects rebound effects that would typically
deployment of electro-mobility in Europe. While this analysis
not be considered in supply oriented cost-minimisation models.
starts from the basis of the impact assessment that accompanied
The most relevant model outputs are the annual stock and
the proposal of the 40% GHG reduction target (European Com-
activity of energy supply and demand technologies for each region
mission, 2014b) and builds upon earlier other studies that were
and period, with associated energy and material flows including
performed with TIMES/MARKAL energy system models (Ichinohe
emissions to air and fuel consumption for each energy carrier.
and Endo, 2006; Bahn et al., 2013; Anandarajah et al., 2013; Rösler
Besides these, the model computes operation and maintenance
et al., 2014; Seixas et al., 2015), we study the car sector at a much
costs, investment costs, energy and materials commodities prices.
higher technology detail in the context of the car CO2 legislation.
Each year is divided in 12 time-slices that represent an average of
We discuss in detail the role that electro-mobility could play in
day, night and peak demand for every one of the four seasons of
order to achieve the EU’s objectives on decarbonisation and en- the year.
ergy independence and we perform sensitivity analyses to test the The model is supported by a detailed database, with the fol-
robustness of the model outcomes under variations of assumed lowing main exogenous inputs: (1) end-use energy services and
materials demand; (2) characteristics of the existing and future
2
TIMES: The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System; MARKAL: Market Allocation; energy related technologies, such as efficiency, stock, availability,
EFOM: Energy Flow Optimisation Model. investment costs, operation and maintenance costs, and discount
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 155

Fig. 1. Simplified structure of the JRC-EU-TIMES model (adapted from Simoes et al., 2013).

rate; (3) present and future sources of primary energy supply and
their potentials; and (4) policy constraints and assumptions. In this
section we present a rather condensed version of the detailed
model inputs which are further described in Simoes et al. (2013).

(1) The materials and energy demand projections for each coun-
try are differentiated by economic sector and end-use energy
service, using as a starting point macroeconomic projections
from the GEM-E3 (General Equilibrium Model for Energy-
Economy-Environment interactions) model; for a description Fig. 2. Schematic representation of flexibility services that BEV can provide within
of GEM-E3 see EC4MACS (2012); the JRC-EU-TIMES model.
(2) The energy supply and demand technologies for the base-year
are characterised considering the energy consumption data publications, (iv) biomass based pathways and biomass resource
from Eurostat to set sector specific energy balances. The new potentials were updated as described in Ruiz et al. (2014), and
energy supply and demand technologies are compiled in a (v) energy storage technologies and the handling of variable re-
database with detailed technical and economic characteristics; newable technologies was modified along with the addition of
(3) The present and future sources (potentials and costs) of pri- flexibility constraints for the power sector, as explained in Nijs
mary energy and their constraints for each country are from et al., (2014a, 2014b). To address flexibility issues, each of the 12
the GREEN-X3 model for bioenergy. For other renewable time-slices of the power sector is further split into two sub-peri-
energy sources, for uranium, and fossil fuels the primary ods. In 12 out of the 24 sub-periods, there is a possible excess
energy potentials are taken from several sources as detailed generation of electricity, endogenously calculated for each country
in Simoes et al. (2013). It is possible to import energy based on the installed power of photovoltaic panels, wind and
commodities from outside the EU, with import prices taken wave technologies as well as on demand profiles. This allows
from European Commission, (2013a); modelling the competition amongst curtailment and different
(4) The policy constraints as CO2 emission caps and ETS, are transformation and storage options in case of excessive variable
presented in Section 2.2. renewable electricity production (Sgobbi et al., 2015). In this
context, up to 10% of the energy capacity of the batteries of BEV
For this analysis a number of updates were done on the JRC-EU- and PHEV are added as a flexible power resource that can provide
TIMES model from what is described in Simoes et al. (2013): load shift or V2G (vehicle-to-grid) services. A schematic re-
(i) energy service demands were updated according to the latest presentation of this mechanism is shown in Fig. 2.
EU reference scenario (European Commission, 2013a), (ii) the Investment costs for the alternative fuel distribution and re-
techno-economic assumptions of the generation and conversion filling infrastructure (including charge points) are included in the
technologies were updated according to the “Energy Technology model. They have been derived from investment costs published
Reference Indicator projections for 2010–2050″ (Joint Research by European Commission, (2013b); European Expert Group on
Centre, 2014), (iii) the hydrogen production and distribution Future Transport Fuels, (2011), Fraunhofer ISE (2013), and De-
pathways were updated as described in Sgobbi et al., submitted for partment of Energy, 2012. We have converted these values to
energy related delivery costs and in the model they are added as a
3
GREEN-X: Simulation model to determine the RES-E (electricity from re- mark-up to the energy costs (i.e. the fuels) delivered to the cars.
newable energy sources) potential, for more information see Huber et al. (2004) Table 1 shows the investment costs and the mark-up costs, as
156 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

Table 1. the European Commission has adopted measures to keep this gap
Costs for alternative fuel distribution and refilling/ charging infrastructure. within reasonable limits (European Commission, 2016). In order to
reflect the member state differences in diesel car deployment, we
LPG CNG EV charge Hydrogen
station have applied a country specific constraint to ensure minimum
shares of diesel fuelled cars out of the internal combustion engine
Mark-up on energy (in Euro/GJ) 0.40 3.80 15.00 8.35 (ICE) propelled cars based on extrapolating recent trends in
Investment cost in Euro per 30,000 2,50,000 1500 11,00,000 powertrain shares. The model differentiates between efficiency
facility
Assumed annual minimum en- 7000 7000 10 14,000
levels for short and long trips as described in Simoes et al. (2013).
ergy delivery (GJ/year) Specifically for BEV, the average electricity consumption for long
distance travel was assumed to be 15–20% higher than for short
distance travel. Similarly to Seixas et al. (2015) we assume that
PHEV and HFC can deliver long distance travel as other non-
electric cars. For BEV we assume that in 2010 their share of de-
livered long distance travel to short distance travel is limited to
15%. This limit increases linearly from 2010 to 2030 to 60% since in
that time frame more BEV with fast charging capability and more
fast chargers will be deployed.
Fig. 3 shows for the example of Germany the techno-economic
parameters of the different car powertrain technologies as applied
for the 2020 car investment costs and corresponding tank-to-
wheel (TtW) efficiencies of short distance trips. The efficiencies for
long trip distances are usually slightly higher (except for BEV).
Because of the different portfolios (with in average differently
sized vehicles) each member state has slightly different efficiency
values. Fig. 3 shows the 10 different efficiency levels and asso-
ciated costs that are implemented for each of the gasoline, diesel,
CNG, and LPG propelled variants. The figure reveals the design of
the cost curves that lead to a higher slope of the cost-efficiency
curve at higher efficiencies. The very efficient ICE propelled cars
Fig. 3. Techno-economic parameters for 2020 car technologies (example Germany, require full hybridisation as well as other advanced technologies
short distance trips).4 such as waste heat recovery through thermo-electric generators.
Additionally, Fig. 3 shows the hydrogen driven cars, fuel cell and
ICE based. Finally, it shows the BEV and the two PHEV variants,
applied in the model. The BEV/ PHEV charge station is the sum of one with more electric driving share than the other. The vehicles
one private charge point per EV and one public charge point per that are mainly driving on electricity have the highest TtW effi-
ten EV. No learning is applied to any of the alternative fuel re- ciencies since most of their efficiency losses occur upstream in the
filling/ charging infrastructure costs. The model allows flexible generation processes. In the appendix is as an example a table
blending of biofuels and fossil fuels up to a maximum of 85% with the techno-economic assumptions for 2020 car technologies
biofuel content. The blending levels are endogenously determined for Italy.
by the model and are scenario dependent.
Different to Simoes et al. (2013), we have disaggregated the car 2.2. Design of scenarios and sensitivity analysis
technologies further in this analysis. We differentiate between 45
car powertrain variants including several improvement levels for We run the model up to 2050 with the policy scenarios as
conventional cars, alternatively fuelled cars, such as compressed described in Table 2: (i) reference aligned to European Commis-
natural gas (CNG) cars, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cars, BEV, sion (2013a, 2014a, 2014b), including a 10% renewable energy
PHEV for short and long range, and hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) cars. target for 2020 (EC, 2009b), which is currently not extended be-
The techno-economic assumptions for these technologies are yond 2020, and including a CO2 car legislation with a new fleet
based on Thiel et al. (2014). Technology specific learning over time average target of 130 g CO2/km by 2015 (EC, 2009a), (ii) current
is considered as an exogenous model input, translated as lower CO2 car legislation with a new fleet average target of 95 g CO2/km
costs over time. A learning rate of 10% for the costs of the EV by 2021 (95 g scenario), in accordance to EU (2014a), (iii) an ex-
specific powertrain components is used as standard in all scenar- ploratory scenario of an alternative stricter future CO2 car legis-
ios. Assumed global cumulative sales volumes by 2030 underlying lation with a new fleet average target of 70 g CO2/km by 2030
the cost calculation are 206 million BEV, 77 million PHEV, and 33 (70 g scenario) on top of the 95 g scenario, inspired by a European
million HFC. An average sized car model is taken as a basis for the Parliament (2013) report . The previous legislation (EC, 2009a)
included a provision for crediting the use of E85 (blended gasoline
development of efficiency and costs of the car technologies.
with 85% bio-ethanol content) by up to 5% for each E85 car. This
Member state specific differences in the vehicle fleet composition
provision expired at the end of 2015. This crediting has not been
in terms of size, average mileage, and real drive efficiency are
considered in the model. The CO2 car legislation has been im-
implicitly considered in the model through the base year (2005)
plemented in the model as a constraint on the new car sales fleet,
data from EUROSTAT, TREMOVE and explained in Simoes et al.
in which the EU sales weighted average CO2 emissions of the new
(2013). In 2005 there was in average a gap of roughly 15% between
car fleet has to be lower or equal to 130 g CO2/km from 2015 on-
type approval tested and real drive energy efficiency of cars. This
wards (Ref scenario), lower or equal to 95 g CO2/km from 2021
gap remains constant in the scenarios employed for this study as onwards (95 g scenario) and then lower or equal to 70 g CO2/km
from 2030 onwards (70 g scenario) under the type approval con-
4
For interpretation of the references to the colour in the the reader is referred ditions of the NEDC. For this we have assigned CO2 values to each
to the web version of this article. of the vehicle configurations, which are based on the 2010 fleet
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 157

average value of 142.5 g CO2/km for the new gasoline car and

Standard (i.e.
139.3 g CO2/km for the new diesel car in that year (EEA, 2014) and

EV learning
respective lower CO2 values for the more efficient vehicle config-
urations. The exact formulation of the constraint is given in the

10%)
rate
Appendix. It is important to note that this constraint influences
only the deployment of the vehicle configurations. The (real drive)
New car TtW CO2
fleet target (in g/
energy use and emissions of these configurations are modelled as

as 95 g and 70
130 from 2015
described in Section 2.1.

As Ref and 95
Recent publications and industry statements indicate that

from 2020

from 2030
battery costs may decline faster than originally anticipated in
km)

previous studies (Weiss et al., 2012; Nykvist et al., 2015). There-

fore, we have performed a sensitivity analysis for 2030 on the
consumption reduced by at least 27% versus no

basis of the 70 g scenario: varying the learning rate for the costs of
2030–2050 in each year: total primary energy

the EV specific powertrain components. The exogenous learning

rates in the sensitivity analysis are 5%, 7.5%, 10% (i.e. standard in all
scenarios), 12.5%, and 15%. A 10% learning rate relates in the model
to specific battery costs of approximately 190 €2010/kW h in 2030,
while a 12.5% learning rate relates to costs of approximately 140
€2010/kW h in 2030.
Energy efficiency target

In line with European Commission, (2013a), the passenger

transport activity increases in the JRC-EU-TIMES model for pas-
senger cars from 5340 billion person-km (bpkm) in 2010 to
policy scenario

6620 bpkm in 2050. For the EU this is an average annual increase

of approximately 0.65% for the 2010–2050 time-frame. From
member state to member state it varies significantly reaching
values between 0.2% and ca. 1.5% for the same time-frame.
and at least 60% reduction in 2050 (all versus 2005), linear in-
At least 21% reduction in 2020; at least 43% reduction in 2030

3. Results

This Section is divided in the following sub-Section 3.1 Scenario

results and sub-Section 3.1.1 Results of the sensitivity analysis.

3.1. Scenario results

terpolation 2020–2030 and 2030–2050

We analyse the following car related model outputs for the

three scenarios for the EU. (i) Car transport needs satisfied by the
different powertrain technologies from 2010 to 2050. (ii) CO2 well-
to-wheel (WtW) emissions caused by cars from 2005 to 2050. (iii)
Final energy demand by cars, broken down by fuel. For the wider
energy system related indicators, we analysed the: (1) Develop-
ment of total CO2 emissions and the transport part of it (only di-
ETS sector

rect CO2 emissions for transport), both compared to 1990 levels.

The 1990 CO2 emission levels were taken from values of the Eur-
opean Environment Agency (EEA, 2013), (2) for 2030 a more de-
tailed look at direct transport CO2 emissions, oil based fuel con-
tween 2020 and 20,302,030–2050, in each year: at least

sumption and final electricity consumption. Energy data for 1990

2020: at least 20% reduction; linear interpolation be-

was taken from Eurostat (2014). Finally, (3) we have compared the
as Ref but transport excluded from overall target

total energy system costs for 2030 for the three different scenarios.

3.1.1. Car portfolio and EV share

Based on the CO2 car target of the legislation and the cost-ef-
fectiveness of the available technologies, the model deploys a
40% reduction (all versus 1990)

different portfolio of car powertrains across scenarios. The model

deploys more EV (BEV, PHEV, HFC) earlier with a stricter reg-
Scenario Energy system CO2 target

ulatory CO2 car target.

Fig. 4 shows the evolution of the car technologies as they are
deployed within the JRC-EU-TIMES model under the total system
cost optimisation paradigm in the three regulatory scenarios to
meet the transport demand. LPG and CNG fuelled cars play a
negligible role in the model results due to their higher costs and
Scenario design.

emission factors compared to the other cars. Fig. 4 reveals that in

all scenarios, EV become the major powertrain option by 2050. In
2050 BEV contribute with roughly 50% to satisfy the long distance
Table 2.

95 g

70 g

trip and roughly 80% to satisfy the short distance trip demand.
Ref

Even in the reference scenario, within the model, EV become a

158 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

REFERENCE SCENARIO

95g SCENARIO

70g SCENARIO

Fig. 4. Evolution of technology shares in passenger cars by scenarios.

cost-efficient technology for decarbonising the energy system scenario. Nevertheless, gasoline and diesel based cars remain
beyond 2035. EV are more cost effective than fossil cars because dominant throughout 2030 in all scenarios. Even in the 70 g sce-
the gasoline and diesel prices increase more than the power price. nario they satisfy close to 75% of the car transport demand in 2030.
This price increase of fossil fuels can be mainly attributed to in- Without target for renewable energy in transport after 2020, a
creased import prices (exogenous factor) and the cap on total use negligible amount of biofuel is used in car transport. In 2030, the
of EU primary energy (endogenous factor resulting in a penalisa- biofuel production amounts to 1.4 mtoe or nearly 1% of total final
tion). In all scenarios, EV do not reach significant mobility shares energy demand for cars. After 2030, the biofuel production gra-
before 2020 i.e. a 2% share in the 70 g and 95 g scenarios. Espe- dually phases out because the limited available biomass is used
cially the transition period between 2020 and 2040 reveals big mainly for heat and power production. In the model results, HFC
differences among the three scenarios. In the reference scenario, do not enter the market in any of the scenarios also due to the
significant deployment of EV starts only in 2030. Their deployment costs associated with hydrogen production. Fig. 4 also reveals how
is advanced to 2020 in the 95 g and 70 g scenarios. However, it is a future stricter CO2 target for cars would lead to a more rapid
more rapidly growing in the 70 g scenario than in the 95 g deployment of more advanced conventionally fuelled cars. The car
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 159

Fig. 5. Evolution of WtW CO2 emissions from cars in the EU by scenarios. Note: The
markers in 2050 show the cumulative WtW CO2 emissions (i.e. the integral of the
lines) and refer to the right axis. Fig. 6. Evolution of final energy demand for cars (TtW) by fuel type and scenarios.

differences between scenarios are gradually attenuated. In 2035 the

related CO2 targets (95 and 70 g) in the model are met by a faster biggest difference is between the 95 g scenario with around 375
deployment of mainly EV and more efficient gasoline and diesel million tonnes and the 70 g scenario with around 300 million tonnes
fuelled cars. PHEV are penalised as they still feature TtW emis- CO2. The fleet dynamics can explain this evolution in time across
sions. Their deployment stays small compared to BEV. Because of scenarios. A stricter fleet target from 2030 onwards will have the
the high number of powertrain configurations available in the greatest effect on the total stock of vehicles after 2030, when over a
model, the JRC-EU-TIMES is capable of making choices of high period of roughly 15 years the total car stock is replaced with more
technology and economic detail for deploying the optimal port- efficient cars, in-line with the stricter fleet target. From 2035 onwards
folio meeting the model constraints. This is visible in Fig. 4 in the the three scenarios converge again as more EV are deployed in all
95 and 70 g scenario beyond 2030. From this moment on the scenarios causing the CO2 of the average new fleet to be lower than
larger uptake of BEV, which account as zero TtW emission cars, 70 g. Total cumulative WtW CO2 emissions from cars in the EU from
allows the choice of slightly less efficient conventional car options 2005 to 2050 amount according to the model results to around 21
within the boundaries of the overall fleet target. billion tonnes in the reference scenario, 19.3 billion tonnes in the 95 g
scenario, and 18.3 billion tonnes in the 70 g scenario.
3.1.2. CO2 emissions and energy demand from cars Fig. 6 shows the evolution of the final energy demand for cars,
Fig. 5 shows the evolution of car related WtW CO2 emissions in the broken down by fuel type, as calculated by the JRC-EU-TIMES model
studied scenarios. For the calculation of the CO2 WtW car emissions for the three scenarios. The total final energy demand from cars more
we allocated the fuel supply and conversion related CO2 emissions for than halves from 2005 to 2050, despite the increasing passenger
a given year and scenario, proportional to the fuel/energy demand for mobility demand. In 2005 it is at roughly 215 mtoe5 and around 86
the car fleet and as derived from the JRC-EU-TIMES for the same year mtoe in 2050 in all scenarios. The figure reveals the importance of the
and scenario. This is a simplification as the daily/seasonal profile of the CO2 car regulation to increase the energy efficiency of cars and reduce
CO2 emissions, especially relevant in power generation, is omitted in the EU’s dependence from oil based fuels, especially in the mid-term.
this calculation. The upstream emissions are normally accounted for in In 2030 we can observe large differences between the three scenarios.
the supply and generation sectors of the model results and we only The final energy demand of cars in the reference scenario in this year
did the WtW calculation in order to verify if a further tightening of the is 163 mtoe, a higher value than in 2020. For the 95 g scenario and the
TtW based CO2 target for cars could cause significant WtT (well-to- 70 g scenario it is at around 131 and 119 mtoe respectively in 2030.
tank) CO2 emissions and offset the gains in TtW emissions. As in all Interesting to note is that because of their high TtW efficiency, the EV
three scenarios EV are a large part of the cost minimal solution for in 2050 need less than half of the final energy than the ICE propelled
decarbonising the EU energy system by 2050, the car WtW CO2 vehicles, although EV satisfy almost 70% of the car transport demand
emissions of all scenarios are similar in this year. They go down from in the same year (see Fig. 4).
roughly 670 million tonnes CO2 in 2005 to approximately 145 million
tonnes CO2 in 2050. This progress is also facilitated by the dec- 3.1.3. Energy system impacts
arbonisation of the power sector. For example according to the Fig. 7 shows the total CO2 emissions and share of total transport
modelled scenarios the EU average specific CO2 emissions of power CO2 emissions, disaggregated by modes, versus 1990 values in the
generation in 2030 are 0.146 t CO2/MW h in the reference, 0.141 in the
studied scenarios. It also displays the level of the 1990 transport CO2
95 g and 0.140 t CO2/MW h in the 70 g scenario. These emissions vary
emissions in comparison to the scenarios. In Fig. 7, WtT emissions are
significantly among the member states, with ranges between 0.005
not added. Hence, the transport CO2 emissions reported in this figure
and 0.421 t CO2/MW h in 2030. Driven by the 2015, 130 g CO2 fleet
are only direct CO2 emissions. The more stringent the CO2 emission
target for cars all scenarios display a reduction of car WtW CO2
target from cars, the more reductions are also achieved in total CO2
emissions until 2020. The scenarios diverge in the transition period
emissions and, most notably, on transport CO2 emissions. The differ-
from 2020 to 2040. While the reference scenario shows an increase of
ence of the three scenarios regarding the total CO2 emissions, because
car WtW CO2 emissions from 2020 to 2030, the two other scenarios
of the scenario design, is small. The total CO2 emissions in the re-
feature steady reductions of these emissions until 2050. Hence, only
ference scenario, as imposed by the applied carbon constraint for this
the stricter CO2 targets beyond 2015 warrant continuous CO2 reduc-
scenario, decrease in 2030 to 60% of the 1990 value. The 95 g and 70 g
tion from cars. The 70 g scenario, imposed by its stricter CO2 target for
scenarios are very close to this reduction with values of 58% and 57%
the new car fleet, displays consistently lower car WtW CO2 emissions
respectively in 2030. The total CO2 emissions reduce further until 2050
than the two other scenarios. The JRC-EU-TIMES results indicate that
to values around 53% versus 1990. The development beyond 2030 is
the biggest difference between the modelled scenarios is in 2030,
between the reference scenario with around 510 million tonnes, and
the 95 g scenario with around 400 million tonnes CO2. After 2030 the 5
mtoe: million tonnes oil equivalent
160 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

mainly caused by the constraint on total use of EU primary energy as car transport. In terms of scenario differences, Fig. 8 reveals that
this forces the use of more efficient transformation and end-use the transport CO2 emissions in 2030 are in the 95 g scenario about
technologies. However, Fig. 7 also reveals that the transport CO2 10% lower than in the reference scenario. For the 70 g scenario this
emissions are in all three scenarios higher in 2020 and 2030 than in difference amounts to 15%. For energy system wide fossil oil
1990. Only in 2050 they are slightly lower than in 1990. Fig. 7 indicates consumption, the differences between the three scenarios are
that regulating only cars cannot guarantee that transport will deliver a smaller. Here the 95 g scenario features about 5% lower oil con-
fair share of CO2 reductions in the EU. According to the model results, sumption than the reference scenario, while the 70 g scenario
even with the 70 g target, the transport CO2 emissions in 2030 would shows a reduction of slightly more than 7%. Because of higher EV
still be approximately 4% higher than in 1990. The figure also shows shares the consumption of electricity as final energy carrier in-
that the CO2 emissions of the other transport modes and sectors creases from the reference to the 95 g and 70 g scenarios in 2030.
continue to increase in the future, if no policies are applied to them. This increase is around 4% for the 95 g scenario and 6.5% for the
This seems to indicate that policy measures for other transport modes 70 g scenario.
or sectors, such as goods transport, are urgently needed in order to The JRC-EU-TIMES model, being a cost minimisation model,
achieve substantial CO2 reductions in transport. solves the 40% CO2 reduction target for the entire energy system
Fig. 8 shows the transport CO2 emissions, fossil oil consump- (without sector break-down) with a cost-minimal technology mix.
tion, and final electricity consumption in 2030 versus 1990 values Constraining the system further through specific car CO2 targets
as calculated by the JRC-EU-TIMES model for the three scenarios. necessarily leads to an increase in total system costs as a side ef-
Overall, in addition to the scenario differences, this figure displays fect of reducing CO2 emissions below the reference level. The an-
some general features of the evolving energy system. Firstly, the nualised 2030 energy system costs increase in the 95 g scenario by
transport sector, despite specific efficiency improvements, may not 0.45% or 0.09% of GDP and in the 70 g scenario by 0.73% or 0.14% of
deliver CO2 reductions in 2030 versus 1990, mainly driven by ex- GDP over the reference scenario. Typically, because of the rela-
pected increasing transport demand since 1990. Secondly, despite tively high turn-over of the car fleet (complete turn-over in 15
this transport growth and continuous reliance of transport on oil year time intervals) and the relatively high costs of cars, the car
derived fuels, oil consumption will, according to the model results, sector has a large share of the energy system costs according to the
decrease by 2030. Besides some electrification of cars, this is JRC-EU-TIMES model results. In comparison, the cost increases
mainly due to the replacement of oil based heating in the re- induced by the stricter CO2 target appear modest. Dividing the
sidential, commercial, and industrial sectors with other alter- difference in the total system costs by the total reduced CO2
natives such as gas-, district-, electric-heating, or heat pumps. emissions over all modelled periods, the comparison of the 70 g
Thirdly, the JRC-EU-TIMES model shows a general trend towards and 95 g scenarios results in an abatement cost of 60 €2010 per
more electrification in various end use sector applications, besides tonne CO2 for the tighter emission limits. In 2030 the marginal
system cost for an additional tightening of the TtW CO2 emissions
new car fleet target by 1 g is 15 €2010 per car.

3.2. Results of the EV learning sensitivity

In the context of the sensitivity analysis we analyse the impact

of the EV learning rate assumptions on the indicators electric ve-
hicle share, transport CO2 emissions, oil based fuel consumption,
and total energy system costs for the 70 g scenario. Furthermore,
we look in more detail at the car transport demand, the deployed
car portfolio, the electricity generation portfolio including carbon
capture and storage (CCS), the power demand from EV, and its
flexible portion, as requested by the JRC-EU-TIMES for load shift
and V2G.
Fig. 9 reveals that the variation of the learning rate between 5%
and 12.5% has a rather minor effect on the system costs, transport
Fig. 7. Total CO2 emissions and share of direct transport CO2 emissions versus 1990 CO2 emissions and oil consumption in 2030, with the higher
values in the studied scenarios.
learning rates leading to a gradual reduction. This is accompanied
by an increasing share of car transport satisfied by EV that ranges
from 14% with a 5% learning rate to 32% with a 12.5% learning rate

Fig. 9. Sensitivity of model outputs by varying learning rates for EV. Note: variation
versus 70 g scenario in 2030 (with 10% learning rate). Left axis: transport CO2
Fig. 8. Direct transport CO2 emissions, fossil oil consumption, and final electricity emissions, total system costs, oil consumption (70 g scenario ¼ 100). Right axis:
consumption in 2030 relative to 1990 values (¼ 100) by scenarios. share of 2030 car transport demand satisfied by EV (in %).
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 161

in 2030. The reduced car transport demand (more details below) demand elastic to prices of the reference scenario. We only ob-
has a small but measurable impact on transport CO2 emissions and serve changes in the demand in the most extreme cases of the
oil consumption, which reduce very slightly (less than 0.2%) in the sensitivity analysis. Under the 5% learning rate, the cost for the
5% learning rate case. This sensitivity analysis shows that the car 70 g constraint increases to a level at which demand reduction
CO2 regulation is an effective tool to ensure that mid- and long- takes place. The demand for passenger car transport in 2030 is
term energy and climate targets can be met, even under un- reduced by nearly 4% when compared to the 10% learning rate
certainty of technology costs as even with higher EV costs (lower case. Also in 2050, Fig. 10 reveals that the car transport demand in
learning rate) the CO2 emissions do not grow and additional sys- 2050 is reduced by approximately 5%. In contrast a 15% learning
tem costs are low, 0.9% higher in 2030 with a 5% learning rate rate displays a very slight demand increase by 0.2% in 2050 versus
versus the standard learning rate case. When EV become more a 10% learning rate.
expensive, the model chooses alternative cars relying on fossil
fuels that are so efficient that the oil consumption does not grow. 3.2.2. Sensitivity of car portfolio and EV share
Between a learning rate of 12.5% and 15% a tipping point is Fig. 10 shows the evolution of the car portfolio over time for the
reached. Beyond this tipping point the deployment of EV would two most extreme cases, the one with 5% and 15% technology
drastically increase between 2020 and 2030. Accordingly, this learning rate for EV. We observe large impacts of the employed
electrification has a large impact on oil consumption and transport learning rate on the deployed car portfolio. With a 5% learning rate
CO2 emissions, with respectively 6.5% and 12% reduction. The car the higher costs of the EV effectively limit its deployment. Their
TtW emissions are lower than the imposed 70 g/km. The learning share, entirely supplied by BEV, remains at 26% even in 2050. In-
rate of 15% reduces the total system costs in 2030 by 1%. stead, more efficient ICE based vehicles are deployed in fast suc-
cession in order to ensure compliance with the car CO2 fleet reg-
3.2.1. Sensitivity of car transport demand ulation. The most expensive and most efficient ICE based car
As explained in chapter 2.1 the JRC-EU-TIMES model is run with technologies are only deployed in very small amounts. In the 15%

5% learning rate

15% learning rate

Fig. 10. Evolution of technology shares in passenger cars with a 5% and a 15% technology learning rate.
162 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

learning rate case we observe a massive deployment of EV with models. Although the scope of the studies is very different, it can
the highest growth rates between 2020 and 2035. The deployed be useful to compare some overall characteristics. We present the
EV are to a large extent BEV, but there are also significant shares of main outcome of this comparison in Table 3. The comparison is
PHEV and FCV. The latter deploy mainly after 2040, substituting based on four recent publications, which are all based on TIMES
PHEV. This indicates that FCV, provided that there is significant model analyses. Besides their different scope, the studies differ
learning, can complement other EV options in the longer term, regarding their car powertrain technology detail and assumed or
especially for the delivery of long distance travel. In the 15% derived battery costs. All studies employed learning rates exo-
learning rate case, the highest efficiency ICE cars play a minor role. genous to the model except Anandarajah et al. (2013) who applied
Instead, a mix of low to medium efficient ICE cars and EV fulfil the endogenous technology learning in their scenarios. Our study
70 g constraint in 2030. In 2050, the standard 10% learning rate is employs the highest technology detail in terms of car powertrain
sufficient to reach the car TtW emissions target below 70 g/km. technologies. It also employs the lowest specific battery costs as
recent industry statements and publications (Nykvist and Nilsson,
3.2.3. Sensitivity of electricity generation and interaction with EV 2015) indicate already for today lower battery costs than the other
We analyse the impact of the EV learning rate on the total elec- studies had assumed for 2050. Nykvist and Nilsson (2015), for
tricity generation mix as well as the electricity demand required by example, estimate that BEV market leaders may source their bat-
EV. Fig. 11 shows the 2050 annual electricity generation by technology teries already now at specific costs of ca. 210 €2010/kW h. In order
and EV electricity demand for different EV learning rates. The elec- to make the comparison more complete we also analysed a “no-
tricity demand from EV in 2050 shows the biggest increase from the policy” scenario to identify the dominant car technology in 2050.
7.5% to the 12.5% learning rate case. The amount of total electricity The “no policy” scenario is equivalent to the BAU (business as
generation follows closely this trend. Mainly three generation sources usual) scenarios of the other publications. All studies come to the
increase their share in 2050 from the 5% case to the 15% case to satisfy
conclusion that under a BAU scenario ICE propelled cars will re-
the increasing EV power demand. These are biogas, gas, and solar PV.
main the dominant technology throughout 2050. The studies de-
Lignite reduces its share. This is a direct effect of the ETS cap which
viate regarding the dominant car powertrain technology under the
limits the CO2 emissions from power generation and the model re-
decarbonised scenario. In Rösler et al., 2014 HFC become the
sponds to it with a fuel switch from lignite to lower carbon fuels and
dominant car powertrain technology by 2050. In all other studies
gas power plants with CCS. The largest changes naturally occur be-
plug-in vehicles either in the form of BEV or PHEV become the
tween the 7.5% and 12.5% learning rate case as in 2050 the share of EV
dominant technology by 2050. Rösler et al. (2014) assume the
display the steepest growth in this learning rate interval.
highest specific battery costs in comparison to the other studies. In
Fig. 12 shows the variation of electricity generated by gas/ solar
sources, CO2 stored, electricity for EV, EV load shift, and V2G in 2050
as calculated by the JRC-EU-TIMES for different EV learning rates. It
becomes visible that while the power demand from EV increases from
the 5% learning rate case to the 15% learning rate case, the model uses
the EV load shift option and V2G as additional flexibility sources that
allow a larger deployment of variable solar power. This indicates that
higher shares of EV can foster the deployment of variable renewable
sources, especially PV. Parts of the higher power demand by EV are
also covered through gas power plants. The CO2 emissions from this
generation source are off-set by an increase of CCS.

4. Discussion and comparison with other studies

As mentioned in the introduction, we have identified five other

studies (Ichinohe and Endo, 2006; Bahn et al., 2013; Anandarajah
et al., 2013; Rösler et al., 2014; Seixas et al., 2015) that analyse in
more detail transport decarbonisation through EV deployment in Fig. 12. Variation of electricity generated by gas/ solar sources, CO2 stored, elec-
an energy system context with the help of TIMES/MARKAL based tricity for EV, EV load shift, and V2G in 2050 with different EV learning rates.

Fig. 11. 2050 annual electricity generation by source and EV electricity demand under various EV learning rates.
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 163

Table 3.
Comparison of studies.6.

Study Regional scope Nr of car technologies battery costs in Euro 2010 / kW h dominant technology in 2050

2030 2050 BAU Decarbonised scenario

Anandarajah et al. (2013) Global 12 266 258 – (P)HEV

Bahn et al. (2013) Canada 38 271 271 Conventional BEV
Rösler et al. (2014) Europe 13 335 284 (in 2040) Conventional HFC
Seixas et al. (2015) EU28 11 330 230 Conventional PHEV
Our study EU28 45 190 153 Conventional BEV

Bahn et al. (2013), similar to our study, BEV become the dominant load shifting or V2G. As a result, higher EV uptake is accompanied
technology by 2050. by more deployment of variable renewable electricity sources,
In a theoretical static setting, a uniform pricing of CO2 over all especially PV.
sectors would deliver the most cost-effective reduction in From this analysis the following major conclusions on policy im-
CO2-emissions compared to any other policy (e.g. Schmidt et al., 2011). plications are drawn: (i) regulating CO2 emission from cars is an ef-
However, in a dynamic setting this may not be the case as a cost- fective CO2 mitigation policy regarding the total emission abatement
effective technology or sector neutral policy in the short term could that can be achieved not only in cars but also via increased renewable
lock out emerging energy technologies in the long term (e.g. BEV) (de power; (ii) specifically addressing car emissions is a robust policy
Mello Santana, 2016). Learning effects, as highlighted in our study, play approach since it is effective in abatement even if considering the
a crucial role – they can, however, not be triggered by financing re- future uncertainty on car technologies evolution; (iii) a stricter limit of
search & development alone, but may need the massive introduction 70 g in CO2 emissions in 2030 can effectively reduce passenger car
of the technology on industrial scale to allow for learning along the emissions earlier than the current legislation, without a significant
whole supply chain (Sandén et al., 2005). Besides triggering techno- cost increase for the whole energy system and with positive impacts
logical learning, sector or technology specific policies may also have in EU's energy security; (iv) although legislating CO2 emissions from
other advantages, such as being easier to implement and monitor than cars can have an important impact on total transport CO2 emissions,
system wide taxes. We have shown that the sector specific car CO2 other modes of transport should likewise be targeted by policies to
regulation is a robust policy that allows the achievement of CO2 re- ensure greater transport CO2 emission reductions in the future. Be-
ductions at low costs even under technological uncertainty. sides, the role of sustainable biofuels for decarbonising transport
should be further explored.
In future research it will be necessary to analyse scenarios for other
5. Conclusion and Policy Implications transport modes and scenario variations of the CO2 car legislation.
Further methodological improvements within the JRC-EU-TIMES
The model results reveal that the legislation of the EU car CO2 model could enhance the accuracy of this analysis: (i) explicit dis-
emissions plays an important role to mitigate the CO2 impact of ex- aggregation of car segments similar to Thiel et al. (2014), (ii) explicit
pected growing transport demand in the EU. According to the scenario modelling of the fleet average CO2 target for light commercial vehicles
analysis, total transport related CO2 emissions are expected to increase in accordance to EU (2014b), and (iii) scenarios for CO2 improvements
in 2020 and 2030 versus the 1990 levels. However, a stricter limit of in heavy duty vehicles and other transport modes. Finally, as in all
70 g in 2030 could effectively reduce these emissions versus current technology based analysis, it is fundamental to address consumer
legislation by 5% already in 2030. Under the assumption that sig- behaviour which was not in the scope of this paper. Behaviour plays a
nificant cost reductions of currently available EV are achieved by a major role in passenger car options both regarding investing in certain
learning rate of 10%, the analysis indicates that the deployment of EV technologies and in the way they are used, including modal shifts
is a viable option to attain these CO2 reductions. Under the most between cars and public transport, for example. An interesting future
stringent scenario (70 g) more than one quarter of the passenger car avenue for research could be combining the cost-optimal technology
transport demand is satisfied by EV in 2030. A stricter CO2 legislation based analysis done in this paper with other approaches such as agent
and deployment of EV can also have a positive impact on energy se- based models that could better explore modal shifts and passenger car
curity aspects as it can reduce the consumption of fossil oil based fuels acquisition.
in the EU by more than 2% in 2030 versus the current legislation. A
more stringent CO2 target for cars (70 g scenario) has, according to the
model results, only a small effect on total system costs of below 1% in Acknowledgements
2030.
The model results are dependent on the assumed learning rate We would like to express our gratitude to Jean-François Dallemand
for cost reductions of electrified vehicles. They exhibit gradual from the JRC, the anonymous referees and the editor who provided
small changes when applying a learning rate between the interval constructive comments and critical feedback on our manuscript. These
5–12.5%. This indicates that the CO2 car regulation seems to be a led to a significant improvement of the paper. Ideas expressed and
robust policy to achieve CO2 reductions at low costs also under remaining omissions are our sole responsibility.
uncertainty of technology costs and performance. A learning rate
beyond 12.5% results in a massive deployment of electrified ve-
hicles and pushes the car tank-to-wheel emissions below 70 g/km Appendix A. – Example for detailed car techno-economic
without additional system costs. The ETS target ensures that the assumptions
higher electricity demand from EV is covered by low carbon
electricity sources, including CCS. According to the scenario ana- See Table A1.
lysis, EV are able to provide flexibility services to the grid through
Appendix B. - Constraint for car regulation

6.
Battery costs for other studies converted from other currency years. See Table B1.
164 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

Table A1.
Techno-economic assumptions for new cars in Italy in 2020.

Car technology Input fuel TtW efficiencya in km/MJfuel Investment cost in Euro2010 Annual maintenance cost in Euro2010

Long distance travel Short distance travel

Diesel car new Diesel 0.558 0.397 19,106 573

Diesel car new 8% less CO2 Diesel 0.606 0.431 19,345 580
Diesel car new 14% less CO2 Diesel 0.649 0.461 19,625 589
Diesel car new 20% less CO2 Diesel 0.697 0.496 19,989 600
Diesel car new 25% less CO2 Diesel 0.744 0.529 20,378 611
Diesel car new 30% less CO2 Diesel 0.797 0.567 20,901 627
Diesel car new 34% less CO2 Diesel 0.845 0.601 21,480 644
Diesel car new 38% less CO2 Diesel 0.900 0.640 22,282 668
Diesel car new 42% less CO2 Diesel 0.962 0.684 23,408 702
Diesel car new 45% less CO2 Diesel 1.014 0.721 24,545 736
BEV Electricity 1.360 1.404 21,868 656
CNG car new Natural Gas 0.488 0.346 19,746 592
CNG car new 8% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.531 0.376 20,017 601
CNG car new 14% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.568 0.402 20,341 610
CNG car new 19% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.603 0.427 20,651 620
CNG car new 24% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.642 0.455 20,973 629
CNG car new 28% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.678 0.480 21,247 637
CNG car new 32% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.718 0.509 21,588 648
CNG car new 38% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.787 0.558 22,485 675
CNG car new 42% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.842 0.596 23,660 710
CNG car new 47% less CO2 Natural Gas 0.921 0.653 26,423 793
HFC Hydrogen 1.080 0.735 24,353 731
Hydrogen ICE car Hydrogen 0.684 0.465 24,130 724
Gasoline car new Gasoline 0.509 0.360 17,106 513
Gasoline car new 8% less CO2 Gasoline 0.553 0.392 17,377 521
Gasoline car new 14% less CO2 Gasoline 0.591 0.419 17,701 531
Gasoline car new 19% less CO2 Gasoline 0.628 0.445 18,011 540
Gasoline car new 24% less CO2 Gasoline 0.669 0.474 18,333 550
Gasoline car new 28% less CO2 Gasoline 0.706 0.500 18,607 558
Gasoline car new 32% less CO2 Gasoline 0.748 0.530 18,948 568
Gasoline car new 38% less CO2 Gasoline 0.820 0.581 19,845 595
Gasoline car new 42% less CO2 Gasoline 0.877 0.621 21,020 631
Gasoline car new 47% less CO2 Gasoline 0.959 0.680 23,783 713
LPG car new LPG 0.496 0.352 18,956 569
LPG car new 8% less CO2 LPG 0.539 0.382 19,227 577
LPG car new 14% less CO2 LPG 0.577 0.409 19,551 587
LPG car new 19% less CO2 LPG 0.613 0.434 19,861 596
LPG car new 24% less CO2 LPG 0.653 0.463 20,183 605
LPG car new 28% less CO2 LPG 0.689 0.488 20,457 614
LPG car new 32% less CO2 LPG 0.730 0.517 20,798 624
LPG car new 38% less CO2 LPG 0.801 0.567 21,695 651
LPG car new 42% less CO2 LPG 0.856 0.606 22,870 686
LPG car new 47% less CO2 LPG 0.936 0.664 25,633 769
PHEVb Electricity 1.398 1.424 20,982 629
Gasoline 0.479 0.390

a
Eficiency varies with biofuel blends.
b
Different shares of energy applied depending on the ratio of long to short distance travel.

Table B1.
Values for ax.

x: Car technology a: CO2 factor x: Car technology a: CO2 factor

Diesel car new 139 Gasoline car new 143

Diesel car new 8% less CO2 128 Gasoline car new 8% less CO2 131
Diesel car new 14% less CO2 120 Gasoline car new 14% less CO2 123
Diesel car new 20% less CO2 111 Gasoline car new 19% less CO2 115
Diesel car new 25% less CO2 104 Gasoline car new 24% less CO2 108
Diesel car new 30% less CO2 98 Gasoline car new 28% less CO2 103
Diesel car new 34% less CO2 92 Gasoline car new 32% less CO2 97
Diesel car new 38% less CO2 86 Gasoline car new 38% less CO2 88
Diesel car new 42% less CO2 81 Gasoline car new 42% less CO2 83
Diesel car new 45% less CO2 77 Gasoline car new 47% less CO2 76
BEV 0 LPG car new 131
CNG car new 117 LPG car new 8% less CO2 120
CNG car new 8% less CO2 108 LPG car new 14% less CO2 112
 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166 165

Table B1. (continued )

CNG car new 14% less CO2 101 LPG car new 19% less CO2 106
CNG car new 19% less CO2 95 LPG car new 24% less CO2 99
CNG car new 24% less CO2 89 LPG car new 28% less CO2 94
CNG car new 28% less CO2 84 LPG car new 32% less CO2 89
CNG car new 32% less CO2 80 LPG car new 38% less CO2 81
CNG car new 38% less CO2 73 LPG car new 42% less CO2 76
CNG car new 42% less CO2 68 LPG car new 47% less CO2 69
CNG car new 47% less CO2 62 PHEV more short distance travel 40
Hydrogen ICE car 0 PHEV more long distance travel 50
HFC 0

the TIMES-households model. Appl. Energy 139, 56–67.

Daly, H.E., Ramea, K., Chiodi, A., Yeh, S., Gargiulo, M., Gallachóir, B, Ó., 2014. In-
corporating travel behaviour and travel time into TIMES energy system models.
Table C1.
Appl. Energy 135, 429–439.
2030 EV investment costs under different learning rate assumptions:. de Mello Santana, P.H., 2016. Cost-effectiveness as energy policy mechanisms: the
paradox of technology-neutral and technology-specific policies in the short and
Learning rate Investment cost in Euro2010 long term. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 58, 1216–1222.
Department of Energy, 2012. Fuel Cell Technologies Program Annual Merit Review
BEV PHEV FCV USA. Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure Cost Analysis, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, May 2012.
5.0% 25,583 23,768 27,009 Donateo, T., Licci, F., D’Elia, A., Colangelo, G., Laforgia, D., Ciancarelli, F., 2015. Eva-
7.5% 22,808 21,715 24,546 luation of emissions of CO2 and air pollutants from electric vehicles in Italian
10.0% (i.e. standard) 20,690 20,087 22,527 cities. Appl. Energy 157, 675–687.
12.5% 19,085 18,804 20,881 EC, 2009a. Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
15.0% 17,879 17,801 19,546 Council: setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part
of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-
duty vehicles.
EC, 2009b. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from re-
∑ ax * s x , y , z newable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/
Targetz ≥ EC and 2003/30/EC.
∑ s x, y, z EC4MACS, 2012. European consortium for modelling of air pollution and climate
strategies – the GEM-E3 Macro-Economic Model, (available under): 〈http://ec.
where. europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction ¼home.
z is the specific year, showFile&rep¼file&fil¼ EC4MACS_GEM3_Methodologies_Final.pdf〉.
a is the car technology specific CO2 factor (expressed in g CO2 EEA, 2013. National emissions reported to the UNFCCC and to the EU Greenhouse
Gas Monitoring Mechanism. Dataset UNFCCC_v14.mdb downloaded on 9 April
/km), 2014.
x is the subscript for the car technology, EEA, 2014. Monitoring CO2 emissions from passenger cars and vans in 2013.
y is the subscript for each of the 28 EU member states, Electric Vehicle News, 2015. Chevrolet Bolt battery cells to cost “industry-leading”
$145 per kW h, (available under): 〈http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2015/
s is the new car sales as deployed by the model. 10/chevrolet-bolt-battery-cells-to-cost.html〉, (Last accessed 27.04.16).
For the Ref scenario the target in 2015 is 130 g CO2/km and EU, 2014a. Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 of the European Parliament and of the
beyond, Council: amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the modalities for
reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars.
For the 95 g scenario the target is as Ref and 95 g CO2/km in EU, 2014b. Regulation (EU) No 253/2014 Of the European Parliament and of the
2020 and beyond; linear interpolation of target between 2015 and Council: Amending Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 to define the modalities for
2020, reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new light commercial
vehicles.
For the 70 g scenario the target is as 95 g and 70 g CO2/km in
European Commission, 2013a. EU Energy, Transport and GHG emissions – Trends to
2030 and beyond; linear interpolation of target between 2020 and 2050, Reference scenario 2013.
2030. European Commission, 2013b. Commission staff working document – impact as-
sessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive on the de-
ployment of alternative fuels infrastructure [SWD (2013) 5].
European Commission, 2014a. Communication - A policy framework for climate
Appendix C. – EV investment costs under different learning and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 [COM (2014) 15].
European Commission, 2014b. Commission staff working document – impact as-
rate assumptions sessment accompanying the document - Communication - A policy framework
for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 [SWD (2014) 255].
See Table C1. European Commission, 2016. Proposal for a regulation on the approval and market
surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components
and separate technical units intended for such vehicles [COM (2016) 31].
European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels, 2011. Infrastructure for alter-
References native fuels, Report of the European Expert Group On Future Transport Fuels,
December 2011.
European Parliament, 2013. Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European
Anandarajah, G., McDowall, W., Ekins, P., 2013. Decarbonising road transport with Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define
hydrogen and electricity: long term global technology learning scenarios. Int. J. the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new
Hydrog. Energy 38, 3419–3432. passenger cars [A7-0151/2013].
Bahn, O., Marcy, M., Vaillancourt, K., Waaub, J.-P., 2013. Electrification of the Ca- Eurostat, 2014. Gross inland energy consumption, by fuel. Table tsdcc320 down-
nadian road transportation sector: a 2050 outlook with TIMES-Canada. Energy loaded on 5 May 2014.
Policy 62, 593–606. Eurostat, 2016. Greenhouse gas emission statistics - Statistics Explained. Available
Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H.-J., Del Duce, A., Simons, A., 2015. The environmental under: 〈http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Green
performance of current and future passenger vehicles: life cycle assessment house_gas_emission_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information〉 (last accessed
based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Appl. Energy 157, 871–883. on 18.04.16).
Bishop, J.D.K., Martin, N.P.D., Boies, A.M., 2014. Cost-effectiveness of alternative Foley, A., Tyther, B., Calnan, P., Ó Gallachóir, B., 2013. Impacts of electric vehicle
powertrains for reduced energy use and CO2 emissions in passenger vehicles. charging under electricity market operations. Appl. Energy 101, 93–102.
Appl. Energy 124, 44–61. Fontaras, G., Kouridis, H., Samaras, Z., Elst, D., Gense, R., 2007. Use of a vehicle-
Brouwer, A.S., Kuramochi, T., van den Broek, M., Faaij, A., 2013. Fulfilling the elec- modelling tool for predicting CO2 emissions in the framework of European
tricity demand of electric vehicles in the long term future: an evaluation of regulations for light goods vehicles. Atmos. Env. 41, 3009–3021.
centralized and decentralized power supply systems. Appl. Energy 107, 33–51. Fontaras, G., Dilara, P., 2012. The evolution of European passenger car character-
Cayla, J.-M., Maïzi, N., 2015. Integrating household behavior and heterogeneity into istics 2000–2010 and its effects on real-world CO2 emissions and CO2 reduction
166 C. Thiel et al. / Energy Policy 96 (2016) 153–166

policy. Energy Policy 49, 719–730. Europe. Energy Policy 40, 404–421.
Fraunhofer ISE, 2013. Wasserstoff-Infrastruktur Für Eine Nachhaltige Mobilität, Rösler, H., van der Zwaan, B., Keppo, I., Bruggink, J., 2014. Electricity versus hy-
e-mobil BW GmbH – Landesagentur für Elektromobilität und Brenn- drogen for passenger cars under stringent climate change control. Sustain En-
stoffzellentechnologie, March 2013. ergy Technol. Assess. 5, 106–118.
Informing energy and climate policies using energy system models – insights from Ruiz, P., Simoes, S., Nijs, W., Sgobbi, A., Thiel, C., 2014. The effect of limited re-
scenario analysis increasing the evidence base. In: Giannakidis, G., Labriet, M., Ó newable resources on the electricity generation in a low-carbon Europe. Con-
Gallachóir, B., Tosato, G.-C. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Energy 30; 2015. ference paper at the 14th IAEE European Energy Conference, Rome, 2014.
Huber, C., Faber, T., Haas, R., Resch, G., Green, J., Ölz, S., White, S., Cleijne, H., Ruij- Sandén, B.A., Azar, C., 2005. Near-term technology policies for long-term climate
grok, W., Morthorst, P.E., Skytte, K., Gual, M., Del Rio, P., Hernández, F., Tacsir, A., targets–economy wide versus technology specific approaches. Energy Policy 33,
Ragwitz, M., Schleich, J., Orasch, W., Bokemann, M., Lins, C., 2004. Deriving 1557–1576.
optimal promotion strategies for increasing the share of RES-E in a dynamic Schmidt, J., Leduc, S., Dotzauer, E., Schmid, E., 2011. Cost-effective policy instru-
European electricity market. Green-X Final Report, (available under) 〈http:// ments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution
www.green-x.at/downloads/Final%20report%20of%20the%20project%20Green- through bioenergy production in Austria. Energy Policy 39, 3261–3280.
X.pdf〉. Seixas, J., Simoes, S., Dias, L., Kanudia, A., Fortes, P., Gargiulo, M., 2015. Assessing the
ICCT, TNO, IFEU, 2014. From Laboratory to Road – A 2014 Update of Official and cost-effectiveness of electric vehicles in European countries using integrated
“Real-world” Fuel Consumption and CO2 Values for Passenger Cars in Europe. modeling. Energy Policy 80, 165–176.
The International Council on Clean Transportation, Berlin. Sgobbi, A., Nijs, W., De Miglio, R., Chiodi, A., Gargiulo, M., Thiel, C., 2016. How far
Ichinoe, M., Endo, E., 2006. Analysis of the vehicle mix in the passenger-car sector away is hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the
in Japan for CO2 emissions reduction by a MARKAL model. Appl. Energy 83, European energy system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energ 41 (1),
1047–1061. 19–35.
Joint Research Centre, 2014. ETRI 2014 - Energy Technology Reference Indicator Simoes, S., Nijs, W., Ruiz, P., Sgobbi, A., Radu, D., Bolat, P., Thiel, C., Peteves, S., 2013.
projections For 2010–2050, available under 〈https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/ The JRC-EU-TIMES model – Assessing the long-term role of the SET Plan energy
files/ETRI_2014.pdf〉. technologies. Report EUR 26292.
Kanudia, A., van Regemorter, D., 2006. Projections of the demand of energy services Sorrentino, M., Rizzo, G., Sorrentino, L., 2014. A study aimed at assessing the po-
for NEEDS EU Research Project. Unpublished. tential of vehicle electrification on grid infrastructure and road-traffic green
Loisel, R., Pasaoglu, G., Thiel, C., 2014. Large-scale deployment of electrical vehicles house emissions. Appl. Energy 120, 31–40.
in Germany by 2030 - an analysis of grid-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-grid con- Thiel, C., Perujo, A., Mercier, A., 2010. Cost and CO2 aspects of future vehicle options
cepts. Energy Policy 65, 432–443. in Europe under new energy policy scenarios. Energy Policy 38 (11), 7142–7151.
Loulou, R., Remme, U., Kanudia, A., Lehtila, A., Goldstein, G., 2005. Documentation Thiel, C., Schmidt, J., Van Zyl, A., Schmid, E., 2014. Cost and well-to-wheel im-
for the TIMES Model – Part I & II. Energy Technology Systems Analysis Pro- plications of the vehicle fleet CO2 emission regulation in the European Union.
gramme (ETSAP). Transp. Res. Part A: Policy and Pract. 63, 25–42.
Millo, F., Rolando, L., Fuso, R., Mallamo, F., 2014. Real CO2 emissions benefits and Tran, M., 2012. Technology-behavioural modelling of energy innovation diffusion in
end user's operating costs of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Appl. Energy 114, the UK. Appl. Energy 95, 1–11.
563–571. Vaillancourt, K., Alcocer, Y., Bahn, O., Fertel, C., Frenette, E., Garbouj, H., Kanudia, A.,
Nijs, W., Simoes, S., Ruiz, P., Sgobbi, A., Thiel, C., 2014a. Assessing the role of elec- Labriet, M., Loulou, R., Marcy, M., Neji, Y., Waaub, J.-P., 2014. A Canadian 2050
tricity storage in EU28 until 2050. Paper presented at the International Con- energy outlook: analysis with the multi-regional model TIMES-Canada. Appl.
ference on the European Energy Market, EEM. Energy 132, 56–65.
Nijs, W., Hidalgo, I., Quoilin, S., Zucker, A., Thiel, C., 2014b. Flexibility in JRC-EU- Verzijlbergh, R., Brancucci Martínez-Anido, C., Lukszo, Z., de Vries, L., 2014. Does
TIMES and DISPASET 2.0, presented at international workshop on “addressing controlled electric vehicle charging substitute cross-border transmission ca-
flexibility in energy system models”, in Petten on 4 and 5 December 2014, pacity? Appl. Energy 120, 169–180.
(available online under): 〈https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Slides%20-% Waller, M.G., Williams, E.D., Matteson, S.W., Trabold, T.A., 2014. Current and theo-
2009%20Nijs%20%28JRC-IET%29.pdf〉. retical maximum well-to-wheels exergy efficiency of options to power vehicles
Nykvist, B., Nilsson, M., 2015. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric ve- with natural gas. Appl. Energy 127, 55–63.
hicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (4), 329–332. Weiss, M., Patel, M.K., Junginger, M., Perujo, A., Bonnel, P., van Grootveld, G., 2012.
Pasaoglu, G., Honselaar, M., Thiel, C., 2012. Potential vehicle fleet CO2 reductions On the electrification of road transport – learning rates and price forecasts for
and cost implications for various vehicle technology deployment scenarios in hybrid-electric and battery-electric vehicles. Energy Policy 48, 374–393.