Recommendation from the
PSA on Fuel Price Comparison
Assisting Member States with the implementation of
Article 7.3 of Directive 2014/94/EU (Fuel Price
Comparison)
[Written by Ilias PASSIOS, Antonis PEPPAS, Chrysa POLITI]
[February – 2021]
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Directorate B Investment, Innovative & Sustainable
Unit B4 Sustainable & Intelligent Transport
Contact: Antonio Tricas Aizpún
E-mail:
[email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Recommendation from the
PSA on Fuel Price Comparison
Assisting Member States with the implementation of
Article 7.3 of Directive 2014/94/EU (Fuel Price
Comparison)
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021
ISBN 978-92-76-29300-2
doi: 10.2832/89250
© European Union, 2021
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Recommendation from the PSA on Fuel Price Comparison
Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................4
1. CONTENT OF THE INFORMATION TO BE DISPLAYED AT THE
FILLING STATIONS ........................................................................6
1.1. Vehicle consumption...............................................................6
1.2. Average fuel price ..................................................................7
2. FORMAT IN WHICH THE INFORMATION IS DISPLAYED ...................... 10
3. LOCATION OF DISPLAYING THE FUEL PRICES AT THE FILLING
STATIONS .................................................................................. 12
4. TYPE OF FILLING STATIONS (ART 7.3 INDICATES "WHERE
APPROPRIATE") .......................................................................... 13
5. A PORTAL/ONLINE TOOL FOR FUEL PRICE COMPARISON ................... 15
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 16
DEGREE OF PROGRESS ...................................................................... 17
DISSEMINATION LEVEL ...................................................................... 18
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
Programme Support Action (PSA):
Assisting Member States in the implementation of a
common methodology for alternative fuels unit price
comparison in accordance with Directive 2014/94/EU
“FPC4Consumers”
Contract Number: MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
Starting date of the project: 01/02/2019
Duration: 15 months
= Deliverable D6.2 =
“Recommendations/guidelines”
The recommendations set out in this report have been determined by the EU
Member States participating in the Programme Support Action (PSA) “Assisting
Member States in the implementation of the Article 7 (3) of Directive 2014/94/EU
Fuel Price Comparison” and do not reflect the opinion of the European
Commission.
1
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
AUTHOR
Author Member States Contact (e-mail, phone)
Ilias PASIOS GREECE
[email protected]
Antonis PEPPAS GREECE
[email protected]
Chrysa POLITI GREECE
[email protected]
CONTRIBUTORS AND/OR REVIEWERS TO THE DOCUMENT
Author Member States Contact (e-mail, phone)
Paulien OFFICIER THE NETHERLANDS
[email protected]
Nienke SMEETS THE NETHERLANDS
[email protected]
Iulia DOLGANOVA GERMANY
[email protected]
Norman WENDT GERMANY
[email protected]
Celestin PEEK GERMANY
[email protected]
Anni HYTTI FINLAND
[email protected]
Atte MELASNIEMI FINLAND
[email protected]
Juhani LAURIKKO FINLAND
[email protected]
Rui BORGES PORTUGAL
[email protected]
cecile.dumas@developpement-
Cecile DUMAS FRANCE
durable.gouv.fr
mathilde.tannous@developpement-
Mathilde TANNOUS FRANCE
durable.gouv.fr
Anastasia
CYPRUS
[email protected]
GEORGARAKI
Tomislav ZIDOV CROATIA
[email protected]
Isidoro ROMERO SPAIN
[email protected]
Carlos ORTIZ SPAIN
[email protected]
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document version Date Change
V0.0 18/01/2020 Initial Version
V0.1 24/02/2020 Updated to incorporate NL comments
V0.2 25/02/2020 Updated to incorporate DE, FI comments
V0.4 28/02/2020 Updated to incorporate NL, PT comments
V0.5 05/03/2020 Updated to incorporate FR, FI, NL
comments
V0.6 06/03/2020 Draft version to be approved
V0.7 17/03/2020 Draft version to be approved
V0.8 20/03/2020 Draft version to be submitted
V1.1 05/06/2020 First updated version
V1.2 16/06/2020 Updated version ES, FR, NL, FI, HR and
DE input included
V1.3 19/06/2020 Updated version PT input included
V2.0 30/06/2020 Final Version
2
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
DOCUMENT DATA
Document data Deliverable
Point of Contact i) H. Pasios, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport,
Greece, email:
[email protected]
ii) A. Peppas, National Technical University of Athens,
Greece, email:
[email protected]
Version V2.0
Date 01/07/2020
Distribution list All MS
DISSEMINATION LEVEL
Dissemination level
PU Public X
Restricted to other programme participants (including the
PP
Commission Services)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the
RE
Commission Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the
CO
Commission Services)
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
Representative Member States Status
Ilias PASIOS GREECE Approve
Tomislav ZIDOV CROATIA Approve
Anni HYTTI FINLAND Approve
Anastasia CYPRUS Approve
GEORGARAKI
Cecile DUMAS FRANCE Approve
Iulia DOLGANOVA GERMANY Approve
Nienke SMEETS NETHERLANDS Approve
Rui BORGES PORTUGAL Approve
Isidoro ROMERO SPAIN Approve
3
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
INTRODUCTION
The "Multi-Annual Work Programme 2014-2020 for financial assistance in the
field of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Transport sector" adopted by the
Commission on 26 March 2014 (C(2014) 1921 offers technical assistance to the
Member States (MS) for the implementation of Article 7.3 of Alternative Fuel
Infrastructure Directive 2014/94/EU (AFID).
The objective of this Programme Support Action (PSA) was to assist MS with the
implementation of Art. 7.3 of the AFID. In specific, MS shall provide information
on fuel prices to enable consumers to compare the fuel/running costs of vehicles
with different fuels in a common unit (€/100km). In this regard, the Commission
Implementing Regulation on Fuel Price Comparison (FPC) defined a methodology
for calculating the FPC values related to the Art. 7.3 of the AFID.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided to award a grant for the action entitled
“Programme Support Action (PSA): Assisting Member States in the
implementation of a common methodology for alternative fuels unit price
comparison following Directive 2014/94/EU” ("FPC4Consumers"). The
FPC4Consumers consortium consisted of Greece (the Coordinator), Cyprus,
Germany, Finland, France, Croatia, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The aims of
the PSA were:
• to support the consistent implementation of the provisions of Art. 7.3 of
the AFID in the MS;
• to define the format, contents and location of the information to be
displayed at the filling stations based on the Commission Implementing
Regulation;
• to carry out pilot actions to assess consumer perspective concerning FPC
displays at the filling stations and to provide recommendations/guidelines
for a harmonized implementation of Art. 7.3 of the AFID;
• to support MS in making information available to the consumers at the
filling/charging stations and also via digital tools to ensure
consumers/users can make a straightforward comparison between the fuel
costs of vehicles with different fuel types;
• to disseminate the common methodology for FPC calculations and raise
awareness of alternative fuel suppliers, media and consumers.
For this purpose, the participating MS to the PSA planned and performed actions
to fulfil the requirements of the PSA (see infographic). In particular, the
consortium initiated by
disseminating the aims
of the PSA, the common
methodology and the
necessity for display the
FPC at filling stations
(Activity 1). Then, an
online questionnaire was
conducted in order to
assess the consumers’
understanding and
perception in relation to
the Alternative Fuels (AF)
and their preferences
about the format, content
and location of the FPC at
4
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
filling stations (Activity 2). In the course of Activity 2, a total of 7612 responders
participated in the online survey. The results of this survey were used to design
variable display options, which were tested at pilot filling stations (Activity 3).
The pilot actions were performed at 88 filling stations across the participating MS
with a total of 5120 responders. In parallel, online tools were developed in
national and overall level for enabling the FPC via digital platforms customized to
achieve high viewers’ acceptance (Activity 5). Nevertheless, the acquired
experience and results from the abovementioned activities were evaluated in
order to conclude to recommendations/guidelines for a harmonized
implementation of Art. 7.3 of the AFID across MS (Activity 4).
Activity 6 included the Coordination actions needed for managing these activities
on FPC on the national level and delivering the outcomes of the PSA to the
Commission. In this regard, the recommendations for implementing the Art. 7.3
of the AFID were prepared and delivered in two stages, as described in the Grant
Agreement (GA) of the FPC4Consumers. After the completion of the online
survey and several technical workshops of the involved MS with the related
stakeholders (fuel suppliers in particular), the consortium evaluated the collected
results and delivered the first draft of recommendations on February 28th,2020 to
the Commission. Then, the pilot actions were implemented in parallel with the
launch of the completed versions of the online tools. These actions allowed the
consortium to assess the consumers' reactions on-site as well as to investigate
potential limitations on implementing the AFID at the different MS. In fact, the
diversity of the participating MS in correspondence with deviations on the
national regulations led the consortium to propose recommendations, which
provide alternative options of implementation. Therefore, this multi-option
approach for the Art. 7.3 of the AFID implementation aims to be efficient,
effective (MS select the most appropriate options for its case) and applicable to
all MS.
During the PSA pilot actions were performed, focusing on testing the various
options concerning the format, content and location of fuel prices comparison
display on consumers. It is critical their results as well all the learnings arising
from other actions performed in this PSA, are taken up in the evaluation of the
AFID.
The aim of this document is to present the recommendations of the
FPC4Consumers PSA regarding the implementation of Art. 7.3 of the
AFID to the MS of the European Union. These recommendations originate from
the cooperation of the consortium, the interactions with the related stakeholders,
as well as the results derived from the pilot actions and the online questionnaire
survey. In specific, these recommendations are based on the results of the PSA
concerning the following elements:
• the content of the information to be displayed at the filling stations,
• the format in which the information is displayed,
• the locations of displaying the fuel prices at the filling stations,
• the definition of the type of filling stations where the information should be
displayed (Art 7.3 states "where appropriate"),
• establishment of an online tool/website.
This deliverable serves as a roadmap for consistent implementation of article 7.3
of the AFID based on the results of the PSA.
5
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
1. CONTENT OF THE INFORMATION TO BE DISPLAYED AT THE
FILLING STATIONS
In this section, a short description of the common methodology is presented as
well as guidelines for facilitating the implementation of this methodology by the
MS. To begin with, the principal formula for the price calculations in
€/100km, which is described in the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732
and is tested during this PSA, is the following:
€ 𝒇𝒖𝒆𝒍 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕 €
𝑭𝑷𝑪 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒆 ( ) = 𝑽𝒆𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 ( ) ∙ 𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑭𝒖𝒆𝒍 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒆 ( )
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒌𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒌𝒎 𝒇𝒖𝒆𝒍 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕
The first factor refers to the reference WLTP consumption for the compared fuel
types and the second factor refers to the average price of the compared fuel
types.
1.1. Vehicle consumption
To perform the calculation, the first step is to select the vehicles to be
considered. The fuel prices are shown for at least one segment (and
maximum of 3 segments). To keep as close as possible to the mind-set of
consumers, the bestselling segment is selected yearly (calendar). In that
segment, at least a top 3 of bestselling vehicles are identified per fuel type. This
is done on type level (including all models).
The FPC prices are calculated and are displayed for the fuel types
available in the MS. This can vary per vehicle segment. When a MS does
not have a certain fuel type (commonly hydrogen) at all, then this fuel type is
left out of the calculation, and is not displayed on the price comparison. If a MS
however does have a fuel type in the market, but no vehicles selected using that
fuel type (commonly hydrogen in segment A), then the price is left empty on the
price comparison.
The reference vehicle consumption is Example calculation WLTP:
calculated as the sales-weighted average A vehicle (named A) is in the top
WLTP combined consumption of at least three for segment C. This vehicle A
a top three of best-selling vehicle types is available in the market in four
(based on data availability), considering the models (A1, A2, A3, A4), which
previous calendar year. Optionally, a MS corresponds to different sizes,
can use the top five of best-selling vehicle engine volume and drivetrain
types, if data is available. This calculation is (RWD, FWD, AWD). The WLTP value
performed for at least one segment in the representing vehicle A is calculated
as the sales-weighted average of its
MS, for all 61 fuels if available. Per selected
models’ WLTP consumption. Then
vehicle type, a sales-weighted average WLTP on the basis of this average and the
consumption of the available fuel versions is average of the other two vehicles,
calculated. Based on these averages the the sales-weighted average for
sales-weighted average WLTP is calculated segment C is calculated.
per fuel per segment. In certain cases
(such as hydrogen vehicles) due to the lack of models, this sample can be
smaller than three models. Thus, the vehicle consumption calculated is the
sales-weighted average of at least the top 3 best-selling cars in one segment
1 See under 1.2
6
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
based on the average per selected vehicle type in that segment. See the Figure
1. FPC Common Methodology.
To increase the accuracy of estimations and to ensure the comparability of data,
the vehicle categories, which are taken into account for the FPC price
calculations, are the following:
• Mono-fuel vehicle (liquid, gas)
• Pure electric vehicle (PEV)
• Fuel cell vehicle (FCV)
In the case of limited data of mono-fuel gas vehicles, bi-fuel gas vehicles may be
used for calculating the reference consumption, if the relevant WLTP data is
available. Hence, flex-fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles and converted
vehicles are not considered for the FPC calculations.
1.2. Average fuel price
The calculation of FPC prices requires an estimation of the average
prices of the diverse fuel types measured in euros/national currency per
conventional fuel type unit for the previous calendar quarter, based on
the implementing regulation (EU) 2018/732. Accordingly, the FPC is updated
quarterly (March, June, September and December) based on these updated
prices. For this purpose, the consortium identified contingent data sources
considering the organisations and agencies involved in this PSA and the specific
characteristics of the participating MS. Possible data sources include (1) official
national fuel observatories, (2) automotive fuel retailers, (3) NAPs and (4)
national statistic agencies.
The data from these sources allows the estimation of the average prices of both
conventional and alternative fuels. In general, conventional fuels are considered
the petrol and the diesel, while alternative fuels are determined by the Art. 2 of
the AFID to be the following:
▪ electricity,
▪ hydrogen,
▪ biofuels, as defined in point (i) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/28/EC,
▪ synthetic and paraffinic fuels,
▪ natural gas, including compressed natural gas (CNG) and
▪ liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
Fuels consumption in the WLTP are established for conventional fuels which
contain a limited amount of biofuels. Thus, the highly blend biofuels, as well as
synthetic and paraffinic fuels, cannot be included in the FPC when the obligation
will come into force due to the lack of data availability. However, these fuels will
certainly have to be displayed when market penetration is adequate.
Consequently, fuel price comparison under the same unit (€/100km) applies (at
least initially) to the following fuel types:
• petrol,
• diesel,
• electricity,
• hydrogen,
• natural gas, including CNG and
• LPG.
7
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
Special attention should be paid at the units of the fuel prices in correspondence
with fuel consumption units. For instance, the official fuel consumption figures for
NG/biomethane are in m3/100km instead of kg/100km which was the case in
NEDC. In parallel, the CNG price at filling stations is currently in €/kg. To enable
calculations in the same units, the CNG values will have to be multiplied by 0.717
(the density of methane).
Regarding liquid fuels, the majority of the MS has already developed digital
infrastructures (i.e. websites, databases) and observatories, which collect and
display prices of petrol, diesel and LPG from all the available filling stations at
MS level. Therefore, the average prices are calculated as an average of the retail
prices of all the available filling stations in the MS for the previous calendar
quarter.
For CNG, the providers are not currently obliged to update the CNG prices in for
instance national observatories. Depending on the MS, they sometimes apply a
uniform price for all the filling stations, thus the average price in those cases
may be an average of this uniform price for the previous calendar quarter of the
year. This can be done by agreeing with the sector that they provide their prices
on a voluntary basis. However, when the market becomes more diverse, this can
become burdensome. In some MS, pilots are done with Statistics to see what
possibilities exist. In cases where there is data availability, an average estimation
of the different CNG prices is calculated similarly to the liquid fuel price
estimations.
For the case of hydrogen, few MS provide appropriate infrastructure at filling
stations and an accountable market share of hydrogen vehicles. The price of
hydrogen is not volatile. In most cases, the average price is provided by the
sector.
Lastly, concerning the average price of electricity, the participating MS have
identified the main constraints to define a precise price, which are the following:
• Unavailability of information about the charging mix across the EU,
• Lack of harmonized price reporting mechanisms in relation to electricity
price,
• Electricity is billed in different ways including €/kWh, €/minutes, €/charge,
€/night,
• Electricity charging data is not collected nationally and therefore public
pricing info is not necessarily available in all MS
In this context, the average electricity price is preferred to be calculated
as one single price (based on the relevant charging mix). In some MS, pilots
are done with Statistics to see what possibilities exist to base the price
calculation on real time data as is the case for liquid fuels. Furthermore, for
those MS that cannot provide one single price, it is it is recommended to
display two average prices, one for public charging and one for home
charging. In this regard, if public charging is not available, the average
price of the home charging only will be displayed. These alternatives are
recommended in order to facilitate MS with limited data for electricity charging to
include the electricity in the FPC.
8
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
Figure 1. FPC Common Methodology
9
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
2. FORMAT IN WHICH THE INFORMATION IS DISPLAYED
At the beginning of the project, the consortium decided to focus on developing
the FPC display in a table format. The design of the table and the colouring is up
to the MS. In this framework, during the pilot actions, three options were tested,
which were the following:
• Display FPC prices (€/100km) of one segment,
• Display FPC prices (€/100km) of three segments,
• Display of both one and three-segment prices (€/100km).
Figure 2. Display of one segment
Figure 3. Display of three segments
The selection of segments is based on market sales. In specific, the nationally
most sold vehicle segment or segments were displayed at filling stations.
Consumers' understanding and perspective regarding the aforementioned options
were evaluated during pilot actions. In addition, these options were discussed
10
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
with the related stakeholders including fuel retailers, filling station owners,
considering that they will have to comply with the obligation.
The FPC displays are recommended to be in a table form, and contain the
information of at least one vehicle segment. However, MS can present up
to three segments.
Furthermore, it is suggested to include a link to a website with further
information to the FPC display (e.g. possibly using a QR code) in case the
consumers wish to have explanatory information regarding the FPC. This
suggestion was firstly introduced by the related stakeholders and it was
supported by the results of the online survey. In addition, the PSA made clear
that in some MS the FPC needed to be placed in context to avoid misleading
consumers. This led in some cases to additional information on the posters,
which does not work when showing the FPC on screens. MS are therefore advised
to inform consumers on the FPC at the start of the implementation and on the
website.
Taking into consideration the outcomes of the pilot actions, it is shown that the
use of clear FPC display with intense colours and a plain font, attracts the
consumers to read the FPC display and facilitates the message understanding. In
this regard, the displayed information is proposed to be brief and direct in
order to ensure the engagement consumers and to avoid confusing them or
drowning them in information.
11
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
3. LOCATION OF DISPLAYING THE FUEL PRICES AT THE
FILLING STATIONS
During the project, the participating MS investigated the potential means and
locations to display the FPC prices at filling stations. In terms of display means,
the options include informative sheets, banners and posters as well as the
utilization of monitors. According to the pilot results and interviews performed in
this framework, the FPC is proposed to be displayed on either
posters/banners or monitors. Each MS and in particular the filling station
operators should be able to select the most appropriate means of display, based
on the availability of equipment (i.e. monitors), filling station configuration, the
legislation and regulation restrictions as well as the cost of implementation.
During pilots, the tested locations included the following:
• At the pump
• Outside of the shop, located in the filling station
o Outside entrance
o On window
o On a door
• Inside the shop, located in the filling station
o Inside entrance
o At the cashier/ money receiver
o On a wall
It is mentioned that the imprinted material was placed near the pumps or/and in
the shops of the filling stations while the monitors were placed mainly inside the
shops. Also, each MS didn’t test all of the abovementioned locations at pilot filling
stations due to the different tested pilot schemes and the specific features and
national regulation.
These options were selected from results of a cost-benefit analysis and
stakeholders’ opinion on MS level. In addition, the outcomes of the online
questionnaire (Deliverable D2.2) were also taken into consideration. The majority
of the online survey respondents stated that in a fuelling station environment,
they would prefer to be able to compare fuel prices while they refuel or recharge
their vehicle. However, some MS refrained from using this option, given the litter
it might entail and local regulation.
According to pilot results, the most appropriate locations to display the FPC
(reach maximisation) are: (1) near/at the fuel pump, (2) near the
station’s shop entrance and (3) inside the shop, located in the filling
station. The MS are recommended to select at least one of these
locations to display the FPC at filling stations. MS may leave the choice to
the managers of the filling stations between one or more of these locations to
limit financial burden on the one hand, and to fit the configuration of the filling
station on the other hand.
It is noted that the main aim of this section is to provide a price comparison
system within the EU, which is economically reasonable, practicable and
compatible with national and regional rules. Thus, the FPC prices should not
interfere with devices such as totems or receipts.
12
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
4. TYPE OF FILLING STATIONS (ART 7.3 INDICATES
"WHERE APPROPRIATE")
According to Art. 7.3 of the AFID, the fuel comparison information shall be
displayed “where appropriate” when fuel prices are displayed at a fuel station.
This indicates the necessity for a proportionate approach, which allows a
reasonable selection of filling stations able to comply with the AFID and
undertake the display costs. The responsibility to show the FPC information
should not impose unnecessary financial burdens, in particular on smaller retail
stations or retail stations in remote regions.
Taking into account the requirements of both the GA and the AFID, as well as
stakeholders’ suggestions, it is recommended to exempt unmanned filling
stations from display obligations due to the implementation costs and the
requirement to update the displays frequently.
Two options, whose selection should be left to the discretion of MS, are
provided for determining where is appropriate to display the FPC prices:
Option I:
At least the following manned filling stations should display the FPC
prices (€/100km):
[1] represent at least the 10% of the manned filling stations in the MS.
Selection criteria are defined at MS level,
[2] giving priority to filling stations which provide at least three
different fuel types out of which at least one alternative fuel type
mentioned in Art. 2 of the AFID and it is measured by the WLTP protocol.
In this line, the highly blended biofuels, the synthetic and the paraffinic
fuels are not considered for the filling station selection and are not
displayed due to lack of WLTP data.
Regarding criterion [1], a quantitative measure(s) to clarify the filling stations
which are obliged to display the FPC are defined by each MS based on market
data availability. Indicative measures can be:
• the volume sold during a reference period,
• the number of pumps in a filling station,
Regarding criterion [2], the fuel types are considered the following:
• petrol,
• diesel,
• electricity,
• hydrogen,
• CNG,
• LPG.
For instance, when a manned filling station provides petrol with all possible
blends (E5, E10, etc.), it accounts for just one fuel type. Consequently, this
manned filling station has to provide at least three different fuel types to be
obliged to display the FPC prices.
Option II:
The application of the AFID should exempt unmanned filling stations and
filling stations that have less than A* multi-product fuel dispensers
(MPD) from display obligations due to the implementation costs and the
13
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
requirement to update the displays frequently. All remaining stations should
display the FPC prices (€/100km)
The number A* is determined at MS level. It is recommended to select the
average number of MPD at MS level. In any case, the number of filling stations
that follow Art 7.3 should not be less than 10% of the filling stations in the
MS.
14
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
5. A PORTAL/ONLINE TOOL FOR FUEL PRICE COMPARISON
The implementing regulation (EU) 2018/732 states the following:
“Member States have the possibility to make use of the opportunities
offered by digitalisation such as online tools. Such a tool offers the
possibility to add other information on for instance other relevant costs. In the
course of the PSA, the consortium investigated two alternatives for fulfilling the
requirements of the GA and the AFID:
• Master online tool
• National online tools
The first option was to develop a master online tool, which would present
information of all the MS regarding the fuel price comparison. This information
would be available in both English and the national language of each MS. The
second option was to develop national online tools, which would display fuel price
comparison information of each specific MS. Even though both options would
increase consumers’ possibilities to get information on the costs of alternative
fuels, Master online tool presented difficulties in terms of implementation and
maintenance. Accordingly, the MS are recommended to develop a national online
tool to display nationwide fuel price comparison information. Each MS will be able
to personalize the online tool in order to enhance surfers’ understanding. Based
on the experience of this, the online tool should comprise the following:
• the methodology defined to calculate the average fuel costs for the
vehicle samples in euros/national currencies per 100 km,
• the determination of the average fuel costs expressed in euros/national
currencies per conventional unit (e.g. liter, kilogram, kWh),
• the fuel consumption data based on the WLTP for the national vehicles
selected for the FPC,
• the environmental performance of the selected vehicles (CO2
emissions) based on the WLTP,
• the average fuel prices expressed in €/100 km, for the selected
samples of vehicles.
Apart from that, a short description of the segmentation in MS level is suggested
to be included. Also, the integration of information related to the fuel prices, the
energy content of fuels and the vehicle costs and efficiency is suggested where
feasible (based on outcomes of Activities 2 & 3). The online tool must provide
information at least in the national language. Therefore, the online tool is
proposed to include at least the abovementioned bullets, and each MS
can provide additional information if needed.
15
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
CONCLUSIONS
This deliverable presents the recommendations and guidelines for
supporting MS with the implementation of Art. 7.3 of the AFID. The
comparison of fuel prices in €/100km at filling stations is explained in
terms of content, format and location. In this regard, detailed information is
provided in relation to where it is appropriate to implement Art. 7.3 in order to
accomplish optimum results and fulfil the purposes of the AFID. In parallel, the
scope and core elements of developing a national online tool are presented.
The recommendations are based on the experience acquired in the course of the
PSA and the provisions of the Art. 7.3 of the AFID. In particular, a significant
share of consumers across the participating MS as well as several stakeholders
from the mobility industry and fuel suppliers were involved in the PSA and their
reactions and opinions were taken into consideration. This consistent interaction
with all interested parties resulted in a holistic harmonised approach which allows
an effective comparison among the available fuel types without misleading the
consumers and imposing unnecessary financial burden to the filling station
operators.
Nevertheless, the main principle of the proposed recommendations is to include
alternative options for each implementation step, which will enable MS to apply
the provisions of the AFID efficiently and achieve optimum results. Hence, this
document summarizes the recommendations for the consistent
implementation of the Art. 7.3 of the AFID, fully complied with PSA
contract requirements, related to AFI Directive and Commission
Implementing Regulation.
16
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
DEGREE OF PROGRESS
This document is in line with the work proposed in GA.
17
Deliverable D6.2
Programme Support Action (PSA) No : MOVE/B4/SUB/2018-491/CEF/PSA/SI2.798275
DISSEMINATION LEVEL
Public
The project has received funding from the European Union's Programme
Support Actions, under Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for Transport.
18
Deliverable D6.2
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information
centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European
Union. You can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these
calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is
available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free
publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in
all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal ( http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en ) provides access
to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both
commercial and non-commercial purposes.
19
Deliverable D6.2
MI-04-21-036-EN-N
ISBN: 978-92-76-29300-2 doi: 10.2832/89250
Märge tehtud:
Kehtib kuni:
Alus:
Teabevaldaja: Majandus- ja
Kommunikatsiooniministeerium*/
Eesti Õliühing MTÜ ja tanklad
Meie 09.01.2023 nr 2-14/2022/7611-2
Euroopa Komisjoni vastused tanklate
esindajate küsimustele. Esindajate sisendi
küsimine ja uue koosoleku paika panemine.
"Alternatiivkütuste taristu kasutuselevõtule
esitatavad ohutusnõuded" määruse
täiendamine
Austatud MTÜ Eesti Õliühingu ja tanklate esindajad,
22.detsembril 2022.a toimus veebikoosolek, kus Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium
tutvustas EL direktiivi 2014/94 ja selle rakendusmääruse 2018/732 nõudeid ning tulevast
„Alternatiivkütuste taristu kasutuselevõtule esitatavad ohutusnõuded“ määruse täiendamist.
Täname aktiivse osalemise ja esitatud küsimuste eest. Kõik tekkinud küsimused saatsime Euroopa
Komisjonile, käesolevaga edastame Teile vastused.
Lisame kirjale ka koosoleku ettekande.
1. Nestel ja Alexelal on kõik automaattanklad, mis ei ole (EL) Direktiivi 2014/94 art 7(3)
kohaldamisalas. Automaattanklate juures on teiste ettevõtjate poed/kioskid,
klienditeenindajad kütust ei müü. Kas Direktiivi 2014/94 nõuded kehtivad Neste ja
Alexela tanklate suhtes või mitte?
Dokumendi „Recommendation from the PSA on fuel price comparison“ punkt 4 sätestab, et võttes
arvesse (EL) Direktiivi 2014/94 nõudeid, samuti sidusrühmade ettepanekuid, on soovitatav jätta
automaattanklad hindade kuvamise erandiks ning vabastada väljapanekukohustuse tõttu
tekitavatest suurtest halduskuludest ja ekraanide sagedase värskendamise vajadusest.
2. Kas alternatiivkütusena käsitletakse ka HVO'd?
(EL) Direktiivi 2014/94 artikkel 2 hõlmab alternatiivkütustena biokütuseid ja sünteetilisi kütuseid.
Seetõttu on HVO direktiivi reguleerimisalasse kuuluv alternatiivkütus.
3. Kas sõiduhindade kuvamisel lähtutakse puhtalt ja ainult tangitava kütuse kulust?
Kui vastus on jaatav, siis on see ekslik, kuna erinevate kütuseliikidega võivad
Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / 625 6342 /
[email protected] / www.mkm.ee
Registrikood 70003158
kaasneda tegelikult muud vältimatud kulud, näiteks diisli puhul AdBlue? Erinevaid
kütuseid tarvitavate sõidukite erinevad hoolduskulud sõltuvalt kütuseliigist? LPG
sõiduk eeldab ka bensiini tankimist jne.
Euroopa Komisjoni rakendusmääruse 2018/732 lisas on sätestatud, et kütusehindade arvutamisel
ühises ühikus on vastava sõiduki kütusekulu 100 km kohta see, mis on märgitud (EL) Direktiivi
2007/46 artiklis 18 nimetatud sõiduki vastavustunnistusel ja vajaduse korral liikmesriikide
määratud kütusekulu väärtused 100 km kohta bensiini või diislikütuse segude jaoks.
Vastavustunnistusel on kirjas, mis kütuseid sõiduk võib kasutada ja kütusekulu nende erinevate
kütustega. Arvutused tuleb teha puhtalt kütusekulu põhjal, mis tüübivastavuse tunnistusel kirjas
on. EK rakendusmääruse 2018/732 punkti 3b saab rakendada ka HVO korral.
4. Mis on teiste Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide pilootprojektide tulemused? Kuidas
hindade kuvamise süsteem töötas ja mis kõige tähtsam, kuidas tarbijad sellele
reageerisid ja milline oli nende tagasiside?
Kreeka ja Soome pilootprojektide tulemuste dokumendid on saadetud koos käesoleva kirjaga
kõigile kaasatud osapooltele.
Ootame MTÜ Eesti Õliühingu ja tanklate esindajate sisendit Euroopa Komisjoni vastuste kohta ja
koosolekul tutvustatud määruse täiendamise võimalustest hiljemalt 18.01.2023 kellaks 12:00.
Palume saata sisendi e-postile
[email protected]
Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium ootab Teid järgmisele koosolekule, mis toimub 27.
jaanuaril 2023 kell 10:00-11:30 veebivahendusel. Koosolekuga liitumiseks saadetakse link e-posti
teel hiljemalt 25.01.2023.
Lugupidamisega,
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Indrek Gailan
Transpordi arengu ja investeeringute osakonna juhataja transpordi asekantsleri ülesannetes/*
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
/*Lisaadressaadid: AS Alexela
Olerex Terminal AS
ORLEN Eesti OÜ
Saare Kütus AS
SGS Eesti AS
Circle K Eesti AS
Olerex AS
Tartu Terminal AS
Tallinna Terminal AS
Analiit OÜ
2 (3)
Opteris OÜ
Heveri Autoteenus OÜ
VKG Logistika OÜ
Hiiumaa Sadamad SA
Texor OÜ
Mixgrupp OÜ
Flexoil OÜ
Levax JK OÜ
OBB Kaubanduse OÜ
Eksar-Transoil AS
ALOIL OÜ
Minibarrel OÜ
Saare Gaas OÜ
ABACUS OÜ
LOHUSALU SADAM OÜ
ANTAARES AS
Peeter Projekt OÜ
ANNA KÜTUS OÜ
Ilmar ja N OÜ
PETKAM OÜ
Propaan AS
Go Oil AS
Herm Trade OÜ
Moora R-Jaamad OÜ
MIRTEZOR OÜ
SILVENOINEN OÜ
HEPA OÜ
Airok OÜ
TECHNE TÖÖKODA OÜ
Anastasija Moskvitšjova
625 6355
[email protected]
3 (3)
Activity 3: Pilot action to test different options concerning format, contents and location of fuel
prices for comparison at the filling stations
Activity 3 was focused on testing the different options concerning the format and location of fuel prices in
practice through the pilot schema for the participating MS, under a harmonized data collection and analysis
framework. In the course of the activity, MS selected appropriate filling stations (based on GA requirements) and
placed the FPC displays. The MS with population up to 20M inhabitants were supposed to select at least 10 filling
stations placed in (1) urban areas, (2) the TEN-T Comprehensive Network and (3) the TEN-T Core Network and
interview at least 400 persons. On the contrary, MS with population of more than 20 M inhabitants were expected
to perform the tests at 15 filling stations with the participation of 1000 persons. The participating MS concluded
to the six pilot schemes (see Table 1), for evaluating the following:
1. the understanding and acceptance of the FPC content (common methodology)
2. the effectiveness of the different formats
3. the respondents’ preferences on the display material (i.e. leaflet, poster etc.)
4. the most appropriate location for placing the FPC displays in fuel stations.
Regarding the tested formats, MS concluded to displaying a table with the FPC (€/100km) of either One or Three
different segments. Figures Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict the initial approach on the different formats, which were
tested. The key points, which considered important to be included in the FPC display were the following:
Table with FPC prices (€/100km)
Indication of selected fuel specifications, which were used (i.e. Diesel B7)
Reference of the selected segments
Logo of the PSA project and EU
Reference to the related AFID
Indication to the reference period, for which the prices were calculated (i.e. Oct 2019 – Dec 2019)
Contact information, which would direct consumers to the official website for further information
Table 1. Activity 3 Pilot Schemes
Pilot Scheme No Format Display material
Pilot Scheme #1 one segment Informative sheet
Pilot Scheme #2 one segment Banner/Poster
Pilot Scheme #3 one segment TV/Monitor
Pilot Scheme #4 three segments Informative sheet
Pilot Scheme #5 three segments Banner/Poster
Pilot Scheme #6 three segments TV/Monitor
Figure 1. Display of one segment Figure 2 Display of three segments
The participating MS proceeded with designing their own formats and translating them to their national
language. The figures below show the formats, which were used for the pilot actions and the interviews. In some
MS, a more elaborate explanation was added explaining to consumers the content of the FPC and that it gave an
indication of the price. Stakeholders were afraid that otherwise consumers would be misled. This disclaimer
emphasised that the prices indicated can vary per specific situation.
Figure 3 Greek format Figure 4 Croatian format Figure 5 Finnish format
Figure 6 Cypriot format Figure 7 French format Figure 8 German format
Figure 9 Dutch format Figure 10 Portuguese format Figure 11 Spanish format
These formats were displayed on the following display materials:
Informative sheets/leaflets.
Banners/Posters
TVs/Monitors
The MS were able to display the FPC prices (€/100km) on the following locations:
At the pump (i.e. poster, informative sheets/leaflet, banner)
Outside of the shop, located in the filling station (i.e. poster, banner)
o Outside entrance
o On window
o On a door
Inside the shop, located in the filling station (i.e. poster, banner, informative leaflet, TVs/monitors)
o Inside entrance
o At the cashier/ money receiver
o On wall
For testing these options, a questionnaire of 9 questions was prepared. The MS translated the questionnaire and
they were able to adjust it to their specific pilot cases. They could also ask extra questions if needed. The basic
questionnaire included the following questions:
Q1. Did you notice the fuel price comparison display?
Q2. How comprehensible is the fuel price comparison display?
Q3. Would you prefer another display?
Q4. What would be the best location for the €/100 km information?
Q5. How would you rate the €/100km price for the fuel you use?
Q6. What fuel does your vehicle use now?
Q7. How old is your car?
Q8. Do you think this kind of information could influence your choice when you buy a new car?
Q9. Do you have any additional comments, questions, or concerns or improvement you would like to share?
Greece Pilot information
The National Technical University of Athens commissioned S.M.R. Consultants Ltd. the implementation of a public
opinion survey of consumers on the subject of their preferences for the visualization and comparison of the cost
of vehicle fuel of different types of fuel, using a single comparative unit, expressed in €/100 km, at 10 selected
stations in the country's national network, in the context of the project entitled "ASSISTING MEMBER STATES
WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 7.3 OF DIRECTIVE 2014/94/EU (FUEL PRICE COMPARISON)".
This research concerns the completion of questionnaires through personal interviews with a random sample of
drivers (out of a total of 400 people).
The survey was carried out by completing questionnaires in the period 25/02/2020 – 05/07/2020 (The period
of conducting the survey was extended due to the extraordinary circumstances arising due to COVID-19).
Figure 1. Figure 2.
Figure 4
Figure 3.
Greece Results
The comparative Price of Fuels was shown at all Filling Stations:
On the posters and banners that were placed at the entrance and at the pumps
On the magnets that were placed on the pumps
Q1. Did you notice the fuel price comparison display?
6,6%
22,5%
71,0%
Yes, very clearly Yes, but didn’t give much attention to contents No
Q2. How comprehensible is the fuel price comparison display?
19,2%
32,8%
25,3%
22,7%
Easy to understand Understandable Difficult to understand Not at all understandable
Q3. Would you prefer another display?
0,4 37,0%
0,35
30,7%
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15 11,6% 11,9%
8,8%
0,1
0,05
0
Yes / Certainly Maybe yes No I don’t know Other
Q4. What would be the best location for the €/100 km information?
0,45 39,9%
0,4
0,35
29,1%
0,3
0,25
0,2
13,2%
0,15
8,0% 6,7%
0,1
3,1%
0,05
0
Pumps Posters Monitors Monitors with I don’t know Other
video
presentation
Q5. How would you rate the €/100km price for the fuel you use?
0,3
24,3%
0,25
20,8%
0,2
15,8% 16,3%
14,5%
0,15
0,1 8,0%
0,05
0,3%
0
Indicates actual Largely Overestimates Similar to my Underestimates Largely I don’t know
fuel used overestimates my consumption consumption my consumption underestimates
my consumption my consumption
Q6. What fuel does your vehicle use now?
0,45 41,0%
38,0%
0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2 17,0%
0,15
0,1 7,5%
0,05 0,0% 0,2% 1,2%
0
Petrol Diesel Hydrogen Electric Natural gas Liquid Biofuels
power (CNG) Petroleum (highly
Gas (LPG) blended)
Q7. How old is your car?
0,3
26,5%
0,25 21,8%
20,8% 20,2%
0,2
0,15
10,2%
0,1
0,05
0,5%
0
Less than 2 2 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years Over 15 years I don’t know
years
Q8. Do you think this kind of information could influence your choice when you buy a new car?
6,8%
21,6%
57,1%
14,5%
Yes, definitely Maybe Not at all I don’t know
Q9. Do you have any additional comments, questions, or concerns or improvement you would like to
share?
Would buy a diesel car in the future (25% of respondents)
Would think of switching to electric mobility in the future (13.2% of respondents)
Willing to buy an electric car (6.3% of respondents)
In the future, would choose a natural gas car (7.6% of respondents)
Would buy an electric car in the future (6.3% of respondents)
Would choose petrol again in the future (6.3% of respondents)
Would buy a hybrid car in the future (4.9% of respondents)
The fuel tax rate should be reduced (4.2% of respondents)
In the future would buy a LPG car (3.5% of respondents)
In the future, would choose a diesel car again (3.5% of respondents)
More electric vehicle charging stations should be installed (2.1% of respondents)
Awareness and information about electric vehicles should be increased (2.1% of respondents)
Finland Pilot information
Findings of online survey
The online survey was run August 12th through 23rd 2019. In total 725 people responded. The most important
results are as follows:
o 69% of the respondents are at least somewhat concerned about the environment and adapt their
consumption accordingly.
o 88% of the respondents are at least somewhat concerned about fuel prices. Almost a quarter (24%)
report being even overwhelmingly concerned.
o Over half of the respondents consider electric power (55%) and hybrid (56%) to be less expensive than
conventional fuels.
o 51% of the respondents did not consider fuel prices when they last bought a car. 13 % considered but
decided to opt for a less expensive car with higher costs and over a third (36%) chose a more expensive
vehicle with lower fuel running costs.
o When considering a new car for the next time, 57% claim they might buy a more expensive car with lower
fuel costs.
o The most important factors influencing the purchase of a car seem to be vehicle price (86% claim it to
have an effect) and fuel prices (65%).
o Regarding the location of comparison prices at fuelling stations, consumers prefer next to existing pricing
displays (60%) and on a wall visible from the pump (55%). Some 60% also mention spontaneously that
they would want to see this information on the Internet.
Findings of pilot action – consumers
Pilots were run in the last two weeks of February and over 400 people were interviewed at fuelling stations.
o 51% of the respondents did not notice the FPC display, regardless of the display tower's significant size
and location often next to the pump (250 cm tall and 60 cm wide on each side)
o Despite the poor spontaneous visibility, 87% of the pilot respondents considered the information easy to
understand.
o Some 50% of the people believe the indicative prices of FPC depict their fuel consumption well while 23%
cannot say. Those driving older vehicles state more often that the FPC shown underestimates their
consumption.
o It should be noted that the sample represents mostly petrol and diesel car drivers' opinions as they cover
94% of the sample.
o Comparing to those who drive over 15-yer-old cars, those whose car is under 5 years old see more often
an opportunity that the information would have an effect on the purchase of their next car (35% see the
info would have an effect vs. 27%, respectively).
Findings of pilot action - fuel providers
o Opinions vary depending on the retailer - retailers operate with very different models and logics.
o Comments regarding monitors: some find monitors a cost effective and an easy-to update solution while
others point out that monitors are not in their control as they are outsourced and used for commercial
purposes. When monitors are not controlled by the fuel retailer, a relevant question is who would be
responsible for purchasing the advertising space at the fuelling station.
o A uniform (national) appearance for the price comparison information was supported to boost the
identifiability of the displays.
o For safety reasons, some stations must keep the pump area free from any additional material such as
stands and posters. In environments where the rest of the service station is not in control of the fuelling
retailer, it is unclear where and how the information could be presented.
o In Finland there is a motive power tax that is dependent on car weight and thus cannot be included in
these comparison prices. This is believed to cause confusion among consumers as the comparison prices
shown do not correlate with real car use costs. Also, the indicative values are believed to cause confusion
when they are communicated in an environment where real time prices are normally used.
o This FPC methodology eliminates other means of showing comparison prices.
o FPC at fuelling stations is considered and administrative burden for fuel retailers and is not believed to
add value to the customer experience at the fuelling station
o Problems with the information base (charging points, gas prices) are believed to distort the comparison
price information.
Important notes for further consideration:
o The intention of the fuel price comparison is considered good; however, stakeholders see that the
information at fuelling stations is severely misplaced. The comparison prices may create confusion in an
environment where people are used to seeing real time prices of that specific stations. Bringing indicative
price that do not base on the location specific prices is considered confusing.
o As the pilot shows, the visibility of the info at fuelling stations is low even when the displays are of
significant size, and to maximise the effectiveness of the information, future actions should be directed
to influencing consumers also when purchasing or considering the purchase of a new vehicle.
Alternatiivkütust
e taristust
Rene
Altrov
22.12.2022
Majandus- ja
Kommunikatsiooniministeerium
„Alternatiivkütuste taristu kasutus
elevõtule esitatavad ohutusnõuded“
määruse täiendamise vajadus
• Direktiivi (EL) 2014/94 art 7 lg 3 – „Asjakohasel juhul, eelkõige maagaasi ja vesiniku
puhul, tuleb teavitamise eesmärgil tanklas kütuse hindade kuvamisel tuua välja võrdlus
asjakohaste ühikuhindadega. Selle teabe kuvamine ei tohi tarbijat eksitada ega
segadusse ajada“
• Alternatiivkütuste komitee 7.kohtumise dokument – ühtse tõlgenduse kokkuleppimine
liikmesriikide vahel
• Määruse (EL) 2018/732 art 1 – „Alternatiivkütuste ühikuhindade võrdlemise ühtne
metoodika direktiivi 2014/94/EL artikli 7 lõike 3 tähenduses, mis põhineb
kütusehindadel, mida väljendatakse asjaomases vääringus 100 km kohta, on sätestatud
lisas“
Recommendation from the PSA on Fuel Price Co
mparison
EL direktiivi ja rakendusmääruse
nõuete täitmise korrapärane
protsess
• Keskmiste Eesti sõidukite kütusekulu statistika avaldamine TRAM-i kodulehel;
• Arvutuste tegemine tanklate poolt (eelduseks on keskmiste sõidukite kütusekulu
andmed);
• Hindade kuvamine tanklates (hind vastava kütuse eest 100 km peale);
• Kvartaliaruande esitamine Euroopa Komisjonile
Hindade kuvamine
Liikmesriikide
näited
Tanklate uue kohustuse loomine -
arutelu
TEN-T
võrk
Eestis
Sõiduautodele 2025 2030 2035
TEN-T põhivõrk Laadimisvõimeku Laadimisvõimeku
s s
koguvõimsusega koguvõimsusega
300-600 kW, 600-900 kW,
millest vähemalt millest vähemalt
üks otsik peab üks otsik peab
olema olema
150-300 kW. 150-350 kW.
TEN-T üldvõrk Koguvõimsusega Koguvõimsusega
300 kW, üks otsik 600 kW ja üks
150 kW otsik 150 kW
Sõidukipargi-põhine nõue
Minimaalsetl: Iga-aastaselt vähemalt 1 kW avalikku laadimisvõimekust iga
elektrisõiduki ja 0,66 kW pistikhübriidi kohta
Maksimaalselt: 3 kW, kui elektriautosid on vähem kui 1%; 2,5 kW kui alla
2,5%; 2 kW kui alla 5%; 1,5 kW kui alla 7,5% ja 1 kW kui on 7,5% rohkem.
Veokitele 2025 2027 2030 2035
TEN-T põhivõrk Laadimisvõimek Laadimisvõimek
us us
koguvõimsusega koguvõimsusega
1400-2000 kW, 3500-5000 kW,
millest vähemalt millest vähemalt
üks otsik peab üks otsik peab
olema olema
350-800 kW. 350-800 kW.
TEN-T üldvõrk koguvõimsusega Koguvõimsusega Koguvõimsusega
1400 kW, üks 1400-2000 kW, -5000 kW ja üks
otsik 350 kW üks otsik otsik -800 kW
350-800 kW
Urban node koguvõimsusega koguvõimsusega
600-1400 kW, 1200-3500 kW,
üks otsik üks otsik
150-350 kW. 150-350 kW.
Turvalised 600-1400 kW, 1200-3500 kW,
parklad otsik 150-350 otsik 150-350
kW kW
Vesinik
• 2027 või 2030. aastaks, 100-200 km kaugusel üksteisest
• Kuni 2 t/päevas 700 barise rõhu all
• jaamad peavad asuma kas TEN-T teel või sellest kuni 10 km kaugusel;
• lisaks peab võib-olla olema vesiniku võimekus TENT-T põhivõrgu sadamas
2025. aastaks.
Info kättesaadavus
NeTeX, Datex II profiil, riiklikus
juurdepääsupunktis
• Staatilised andmed:
• asukoht
• otsikute arv
• ligipääsetavus erivajadustega
• opereerimise kellaajad
• otsikute tüübid
• kW
• Dünaamilsied andmed
• operational status
• kättesaadavus (kasutuses/mitte)
• ad hoc hind
• jne.
Nii me liigume,
Aitäh!
Foto:
Heikki Leis