1 / 9

Report CO2 topic group

Report CO2 topic group. 12 May 2011 Peter Striekwold. Agenda. Background Approach Results Conclusion Proposal. Background. Directive 2009/443/EC requires that - as from 2010 - Member States are obliged to report CO2 emissions to the European Commission

twila
Download Presentation

Report CO2 topic group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report CO2 topic group 12 May 2011 Peter Striekwold

  2. Agenda • Background • Approach • Results • Conclusion • Proposal

  3. Background • Directive 2009/443/EC requires that - as from 2010 - Member States are obliged to report CO2 emissions to the European Commission • High CO2 emissions can result in severe penalties for manufacturers • CO2 data will serve additional functions in the future • Objective of the topic group is to support member states in a correct, uniform and efficient procedure for CO2 monitoring

  4. Approach • Invitation to all member states for participation and information (nov. 2009) • Questionare to participants, analysis of received information, discussion with during two meetings with participants (2010) • Concept conclusion

  5. Results • Only a restricted number of member states (6) participated in this working group • Responding member states use either WVTA data or COC for CO2 monitoring • Only a restricted number of member states (11) responded on the additional questions with regard to the quality of COC data. This quality is not checked by all member states, figures about accuracy of COC are generally not available

  6. Conclusion • The limited number of participants in the CO2 working group restricts the weight of the results • It is clear that even among the small number of participants, the procedure and data used for CO2 monitoring shows many differences • A lot of similar work is done in different member states • The quality of the data used for CO2 monitoring can not be guaranteed in several member states

  7. Quality of COC data • 649 COC’s analysed last month by RDW • 29 (4.5%) had wrong data • 72 (11.1%) contained ranges where exact figures should be mentioned • 70 (10.8%) showed wrong numbering of the categories

  8. Proposal • Develop a common procedure for CO2 monitoring for all member states • Use unique registration of relevant data in combination with smooth data exchange • In case of COC data, check with the WVTA data • Develop an integrated digital process incorporating manufacturers • Introduce a common process for surveillance on the quality of the CO2 data.

  9. New situation Approval Registration en plating Other Registration Auth, Holder/Owner, Police etc, Approval Auth. Memberstates, Manufactures, etc Holder/Owner PoliceTaxes Owner CO2 Monitor Fuel consumption Individual Approval Certificate COC-data Information RegistrationDocument Type Approval RegisteredObjects Individual Approval Registration Certificate of Conformity Valid? Approval of the vehicle type Birth certificate Actual vehicle data Manufacturers Owners, Dealers, Insurance off. Memberstates, Manufacturers

More Related