BCA Outcomes Options 2, 3 and 4 all deliver net benefits over the evaluation period ending in 2029. As detailed in Section 4.4, the net benefit estimates from the BCA are as follows: Option 2: $579 million Option 3: $604 million Option 4: $807 million. The RIS also noted that the Euro 5/6 standards delivered a range of benefits, including longer durability standards and improved on board monitoring of emission control systems, which were not quantified in the BCA. Public Comment Some 27 submissions were received on the draft RIS, from governments, industry, motoring groups and others. The responses to the recommendations in the draft RIS were mixed. All the state governments that responded supported the recommendations in the RIS. The NRMA, LPG Australia, AFMA, some companies and others also supported the recommendations in the RIS, with some suggesting the issue of fuel quality needs further consideration. The FCAI and four vehicle manufacturers who made confidential individual submissions expressed a range of concerns, principally regarding lead times for implementing the new standards, vehicle cost estimates and petrol sulfur levels. The AIP argued that no changes to current petrol standards were warranted to support compliance with Euro 5/6. A brief response to the major issues is set out below (see Section 5 for more detail). Timeframe All timelines proposed in the RIS are at least one year later than the UN ECE timeline and manufacturers have been aware of the Government’s intention to consider the case for aligning with Euro 5/6 standards since at least the middle of 2009. In discussions between DIT and FCAI following the public consultation period, the FCAI has proposed a longer alternative timeline which it considers is more appropriate than that proposed in the recommended option in the draft RIS (Option 3). These alternative timelines have been evaluated as sensitivity analyses and the impacts are reported in Section 4.5 of the RIS. Vehicle cost estimates The draft RIS utilises the only published data that is directly related to Euro 5/6 compliance in the BCA. Section 4.2 of the RIS acknowledges the potential limitations of such data and Section 4.5 also includes a sensitivity analysis on costs over time in the BCA. The RIS also specifically sought input from manufacturers on the cost estimates. The FCAI has indicated that it was not in a position to provide cost estimates.
BCA Outcomes Options 2, 3 and 4 all deliver net benefits over the evaluation period ending in 2029. As detailed in Section 4.4, the net benefit estimates from the BCA are as follows: Option 2: $579 million Option 3: $604 million Option 4: $807 million. The RIS also noted that the Euro 5/6 standards delivered a range of benefits, including longer durability standards and improved on board monitoring of emission control systems, which were not quantified in the BCA. Public Comment Some 27 submissions were received on the draft RIS, from governments, industry, motoring groups and others. The responses to the recommendations in the draft RIS were mixed. All the state governments that responded supported the recommendations in the RIS. The NRMA, LPG Australia, AFMA, some companies and others also supported the recommendations in the RIS, with some suggesting the issue of fuel quality needs further consideration. The FCAI and four vehicle manufacturers who made confidential individual submissions expressed a range of concerns, principally regarding lead times for implementing the new standards, vehicle cost estimates and petrol sulfur levels. The AIP argued that no changes to current petrol standards were warranted to support compliance with Euro 5/6. A brief response to the major issues is set out below (see Section 5 for more detail). Timeframe All timelines proposed in the RIS are at least one year later than the UN ECE timeline and manufacturers have been aware of the Government’s intention to consider the case for aligning with Euro 5/6 standards since at least the middle of 2009. In discussions between DIT and FCAI following the public consultation period, the FCAI has proposed a longer alternative timeline which it considers is more appropriate than that proposed in the recommended option in the draft RIS (Option 3). These alternative timelines have been evaluated as sensitivity analyses and the impacts are reported in Section 4.5 of the RIS. Vehicle cost estimates The draft RIS utilises the only published data that is directly related to Euro 5/6 compliance in the BCA. Section 4.2 of the RIS acknowledges the potential limitations of such data and Section 4.5 also includes a sensitivity analysis on costs over time in the BCA. The RIS also specifically sought input from manufacturers on the cost estimates. The FCAI has indicated that it was not in a position to provide cost estimates.
Final_RIS_Euro_5_and_6_Light_Vehicle_Emissions_Review.docx