Assessment of green taxes in the EU- the case of fuel taxation in transports

5th European Environmental Evaluators Network Forum Assessment of green taxes in the EU- the case of fuel taxation in transports C. Henriques chenriques@iscac.pt I. Clímaco iclimaco@iscac.pt M. Castelo Gouveia mgouveia@iscac.pt

Structure of presentation 1)Rationale for fuel taxation 2)How Europe has been taxing fuels 3)An overview of fuel taxation in the EU 4)Our research question 5)Methodological framework 6)Illustrative results 7)Conclusions/policy implications 8)Future Work

Rationale for fuel taxation Why taxing fuel? Many countries tax road fuels primarily to raise revenue. Demand for these fuels tend to be relatively inelastic (price elasticity near 0) fuel taxes tend to be a stable revenue source. From an economic perspective taxes on road fuels may also be used to internalise environmental externalities or other social costs (congestion, traffic accidents, etc.) associated with their use. Road fuel taxation could be seen as Pigouvian tax imposing a tax on an activity with negative social costs in order to internalise these costs, ensuring that fuel users incorporate the full use costs into their decisions. Optimal taxation postulates (Ramsey taxation) that higher taxation should be imposed on goods with relatively inelastic demand in order to minimize the reductions in welfare. Distributional concerns.

How Europe has been taxing fuels Road fuels are taxed more heavily than non-road fuels tax preference for diesel relative to gasoline. Fuel taxation accounts for around half of the pump price of fuel in every EU member state, and in many cases, much more. Almost all countries charge significantly less for diesel than gasoline exception has been UK Low levels of diesel tax encourage higher proportions of diesel car sales and more vehicle use. Fuel should be taxed on the basis of its energy content with similar rates of excise duty applied to gasoline and diesel fuels to avoid market distortions leading to dieselisation.

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: road transport Final energy consumption, EU-28, 2014 (% of total, based on tonnes of oil equivalent) Greenhouse gas emissions, analysis by source sector, EU- 28, 2014 (percentage of total) Road transport is the single biggest non-included sector in the ETS.

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU : road transport Share of transport energy demand by mode in 2014 (%) Share of transport energy demand by energy carrier in 2014, by mode (%) Source: Eurostat

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: price advantage of diesel There has been a tax policy throughout Europe that favors diesel over gasoline. 25% Price advantage of diesel 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% PT UK DK DE IT GR SE FI -10% -15% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: Based on Weekly oil Bulletin

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: gasoline vs diesel https://www.fuelseurope.eu

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: contribution to climate change Preventing climate change is a strategic priority for the EU. The EU has legislated to achieve a 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020 below 1990 levels. In January 2014, the European Commission issued a communication proposing a next step for 2030: the EU should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels. Different sectors will contribute differently towards achieving decarbonisation of the EU s economy. The White Paper on Transport established that a reduction of at least 60% of GHGs by 2050 with respect to 1990 is required to achieve the overall target. It also established an interim target of 20% GHG reductions compared to 2008 by 2030.

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: evolution of transport emissions without additional measures Source: Eurostat- European Commission, 2013 The figure clearly suggests that without significant transport emission cuts the EU s 2030 and certainly 2050 goals are not achievable.

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: the 2003 Energy Taxation Directive In October 2003 the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD - DIRECTIVE 2003/96/EC) became law. The Directive had some key shortcomings no binding review clauses or automatic inflation adjustments were included minimum taxation levels have not been updated In 2011 the EC proposed a revision of the ETD (same taxes for both diesel and gasoline, a CO2 element into energy taxation, etc.) On April 2012 the proposal was rejected (double burden for sectors already affected by the ETS, economic crisis). The proposal was withdrawn by the Commission in 2015.

An overview of fuel taxation in the EU: vs. taxation 850.00 750.00 650.00 550.00 450.00 350.00 250.00 150.00 50.00-50.00 Excise Duty (Euro/1000 lt) Situation as at 1 February 2016 794 737 728 681 655 618 612 617 624 599 603 493 466 470 422 338 PT UK DK DE IT GR SE FI Minimum (330 Euro/ lt) Minimum (359 Euro/ lt) Excise duties on diesel closer to the minimum Source: European Commission

Our research question Assessment gasoline taxation and diesel taxation based on several criteria: Criteria i. Tax Burden of fuel taxation (gasoline vs diesel) Static efficiency ii. Raising revenue (generate revenues) Economic Efficiency iii. Internalize negative externalities (GHG emissions) Effectiveness iv. Sustainable economic growth (long term technological change) Dynamic efficiency v. Distributive effects (fiscal equity) Distributive justice vi. Tax implementation and compliance Feasibility There exists a trade off between Economic efficiency and Effectiveness optimal taxation says that policymakers must tax price inelastic demand goods (ii) but internalizing negative externalities (shaping consumer behavior) demands that goods (fuel) have more price elastic demand (iii). We use two models to handle this apparent trade-off (Economic efficiency/ Effectiveness) to assess the gasoline taxation and diesel taxation

Methodological framework: the choice of criteria (1) Model Economic Efficiency Tax instruments are often evaluated based on the following criteria: Designation Description Min Min Min Min Max Max Share of tax (Absolute) Price Price advantage of Income elasticity of Tax burden on energy Elasticity of Energy Maturity diesel energy demand prices Demand Fuel tax Excise tax in revenue in per cent of Relationship between Price differential per cent of pre-tax the changes in prices (including taxes) Relationship between total revenues energy of a certain good and between diesel and changes in income Years from entering into from taxes prices plus demand. super unleaded and demand of a force until 2016 and social gasoline divided by certain good. the excise contributions the latter. tax (%) (%)

Methodological framework: the choice of criteria (2)Model Effectiveness Tax instruments are often evaluated based on the following criteria: Designation Description Min Min Max Min Max Max Share of tax (Absolute) Price Price advantage of Income elasticity of Tax burden on energy Elasticity of Energy Maturity diesel energy demand prices Demand Fuel tax Excise tax in revenue in per cent of Relationship between Price differential per cent of pre-tax the changes in prices (including taxes) Relationship between total revenues energy of a certain good and between diesel and changes in income Years from entering into from taxes prices plus demand. super unleaded and demand of a force until 2016 and social gasoline divided by certain good. the excise contributions the latter. tax (%) (%)

Methodological framework: Performance Evaluation using Value-Based DEA Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a nonparametric approach for evaluating the relative efficiency of Decision-Making Units (DMUs). Each DMU uses multiple inputs to produce multiple outputs. Different models for DEA seek to determine the DMUs that form the efficient frontier. DEA identifies benchmarks against which the inefficient units can be compared. The Value-Based DEA method builds on multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) since the input and output factors are converted into utility functions according to the preference information provided by decision-makers. The DMU being evaluated is allowed to choose the inputs and outputs weights that minimizes the score d, which corresponds to the distance defined by the utility difference to the best of all DMUs, excluding itself from the reference set. If d < 0, the DMU is efficient, otherwise the DMU is inefficient and an efficient target is determined.

Methodological framework: Performance Evaluation using Value-Based DEA Utility 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 Tax Burden y = -0,48ln(x) - 1,5438 R² = 1 0 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0% 2,5% 3,0% 3,5% 4,0% Utility 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 Share of tax on energy prices y = -0,972ln(x) - 0,3466 R² = 1 0 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 1,00 Price Advantage of 1,00 Abs Value of Median Price Elasticicy of Energy Demand 0,90 0,90 0,80 0,80 0,70 0,70 Utility 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 Utility 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0,00 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Methodological framework: Electre Tri Devoted to the sorting problem, i.e., a given a course of action is classified into pre-defined ordered categories of merit according to its absolute performances. A methodological framework based on MCDA has also been used. The assignment of each action to a category is done by comparing its value in each criterion to the performances of the reference alternatives. Actions are assigned to 5 categories of merit: (C 1 ) Very bad; (C 2 ) Bad, (C 3 ) Fair; (C 4 ) Good and (C 5 ) Very Good, according to the multiple evaluation criteria. Each reference profile represents simultaneously the upper limit of a category and the lower limit of the next category, as shown in Fig. The cutting level, which determines the exigency of the classification, was constrained to the interval [0.51, 0.67], corresponding to a simple majority and a two-thirds majority requirement, respectively. IRIS Example of application

Illustrative results: Electre Tri - Model Economic efficiency Classification Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good PT and SE improved their performance both for diesel and gasoline. PT PT UK UK DK DK DE DE IT IT GR GR SE SE FI FI 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 No countries classified with a very good performance. UK is the only country that can attain this position consistently! DK consistently classified with a good performance for diesel. DE and GR with a bad/very bad performance for gasoline and IT with a bad performance for diesel. FI with a fair performance both for diesel and gasoline.

Illustrative results: Electre Tri + DEA - Model Economic Efficiency DEA allows each country to freely choose the criterion weights that will place it in a better ranking order Classification Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good DE and GR with a bad/very bad performance for gasoline and IT with a bad performance for diesel with both methods 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3FI_D -0,3 DK_D -0,2588DK_D -0,2588DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,2701DK_D -0,2408DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,238DK_D -0,2681 DK_G -0,2101DK_G -0,2081DK_G -0,1522DK_G -0,2262DK_G -0,1696PT_D -0,183GR_D -0,1355FI_G -0,0965PT_D -0,2057PT_D -0,1959DK_G -0,209 GR_D -0,166GR_D -0,1481GR_D -0,1459GR_D -0,1504GR_D -0,1336DK_G -0,0963UK_G -0,0868PT_D -0,0952UK_G -0,0967DK_G -0,1588UK_G -0,092 UK_G -0,0454GR_G -0,0515PT_D -0,0826PT_D -0,084PT_D -0,0932UK_G -0,0729DK_G -0,0825UK_G -0,0921DK_G -0,0828UK_G -0,0917PT_D -0,0768 UK_D -0,0413UK_G -0,0451UK_G -0,0449UK_G -0,0491UK_G -0,0553IT_G -0,0438PT_D -0,0686SE_D -0,0786FI_G -0,0646UK_D -0,0411SE_D -0,0235 SE_D -0,0166UK_D -0,0403UK_D -0,0427UK_D -0,0487UK_D -0,0406UK_D -0,0391UK_D -0,0399DK_G -0,0636UK_D -0,0392SE_D -0,0392FI_G -0,0085 GR_G -0,0163SE_D 0,009IT_G -0,0139SE_D -0,0118IT_G -0,0204PT_G -0,0328DE_G -0,0295UK_D -0,0391PT_G -0,0218FI_G -0,017SE_G -0,0006 IT_D 0,0086DE_G 0,0127GR_G -0,012IT_G -0,0001SE_D -0,0147GR_D -0,0111IT_G -0,0291SE_G -0,0137SE_D 0,0008PT_G -0,009UK_D 0 PT_D 0,0319IT_D 0,0226SE_D 0,001GR_G 0,0051IT_D -0,0034SE_D 0,0065PT_G -0,0129PT_G -0,0119SE_G 0,0166SE_G -0,0014GR_D 0,0077 DE_G 0,0431IT_G 0,0387PT_G 0,0083IT_D 0,011PT_G 0,0207SE_G 0,0242SE_D -0,0126DE_G 0,0329DE_G 0,0318DE_G 0,025DE_G 0,0319 IT_G 0,0527PT_D 0,0565DE_G 0,0423DE_G 0,0418SE_G 0,0395IT_D 0,0315SE_G 0,0125IT_G 0,0393GR_D 0,0339IT_G 0,0323IT_G 0,0348 SE_G 0,0782SE_G 0,0763IT_D 0,0426PT_G 0,0651DE_G 0,0427DE_G 0,0325FI_G 0,0326GR_D 0,0437IT_G 0,0435GR_D 0,0445PT_G 0,0506 DE_D 0,0997DE_D 0,0917DE_D 0,0591SE_G 0,0661DE_D 0,0813DE_D 0,0515DE_D 0,0393IT_D 0,0812DE_D 0,0661IT_D 0,0728DE_D 0,0577 PT_G 0,1235PT_G 0,0978SE_G 0,0614DE_D 0,0825GR_G 0,1155FI_G 0,0682IT_D 0,0485DE_D 0,0998IT_D 0,0743DE_D 0,0893IT_D 0,0685 FI_G 0,1907FI_G 0,1731FI_G 0,1074FI_G 0,1803FI_G 0,1475GR_G 0,1575GR_G 0,1652GR_G 0,2374GR_G 0,2359GR_G 0,2318GR_G 0,2175

Illustrative results: Electre Tri - Model Effectiveness UK with good performance for gasoline Classification Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good No countries classified with a very good performance and the situation gets worse in terms of classification PT PT UK UK DK DK DE DE IT IT GR GR SE SE FI FI 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 UK with bad and PT, IT and FI with a very bad performance for diesel DK, IT with bad and DE, FI, GR with vey bad performance for gasoline SE with fair performance both for gasoline and diesel

Illustrative results: Electre Tri + DEA Model Effectiveness Classification Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good DE_G, FI_D, IT_D and GR_G with very bad performance with both methods 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 DK_D -0,2588DK_D -0,2588DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,2701DK_D -0,2408DK_D -0,2357DK_D -0,238DK_D -0,238DK_D -0,238DK_D -0,2380 DK_D -0,2681 DK_G -0,2132DK_G -0,2085GR_D -0,2093DK_G -0,2262GR_D -0,1904PT_D -0,2056GR_D -0,1425GR_D -0,128PT_D -0,2054PT_D -0,1939 DK_G -0,209 GR_D -0,2037GR_D -0,1975DK_G -0,1522GR_D -0,1936DK_G -0,1696GR_D -0,1283UK_D -0,0826FI_G -0,0965GR_D -0,1334DK_G -0,1588 GR_D -0,1349 UK_D -0,0826UK_D -0,0826UK_D -0,0826UK_D -0,0826PT_D -0,0912DK_G -0,0963DK_G -0,0825PT_D -0,0959DK_G -0,107GR_D -0,1332 UK_G -0,0887 UK_G -0,0013UK_G -0,0164PT_D -0,08PT_D -0,0822UK_D -0,0826UK_D -0,0826UK_G -0,0787DK_G -0,0904UK_G -0,0916 UK_G -0,0869 UK_D -0,0839 FI_D 0,0212GR_G 0,0054FI_D -0,0282UK_G -0,0311UK_G -0,0414UK_G -0,0612PT_D -0,0672UK_G -0,0853UK_D -0,0826UK_D -0,0833 PT_D -0,0763 PT_D 0,0214FI_D 0,0125UK_G -0,0254IT_G 0,0028IT_G -0,0173IT_G -0,052IT_G -0,0291UK_D -0,0826FI_G -0,0646SE_D -0,0293 SE_D -0,0185 GR_G 0,0232PT_D 0,0238IT_G -0,0198FI_D 0,0151SE_D 0,0248PT_G -0,016SE_D -0,0008SE_D -0,073IT_G -0,0212IT_G -0,0202 IT_G -0,0127 SE_D 0,0373IT_G 0,0295PT_G 0,0097DE_D 0,0401FI_D 0,0462FI_D 0,0014PT_G 0,0054SE_G -0,0295PT_G -0,0004FI_G -0,0170 FI_G -0,0033 DE_D 0,0442DE_D 0,04DE_D 0,0288GR_G 0,0436DE_D 0,0471SE_D 0,0185DE_G 0,0101IT_G -0,0223SE_D 0,0109SE_G -0,0027 SE_G -0,0006 IT_G 0,06DE_G 0,052SE_D 0,03SE_D 0,0487PT_G 0,048SE_G 0,0324FI_D 0,0146PT_G 0,0102DE_D 0,0126DE_D 0,0178 DE_D 0,0102 DE_G 0,0773SE_D 0,0775GR_G 0,036DE_G 0,088IT_D 0,0591DE_D 0,0334SE_G 0,0298DE_D 0,02SE_G 0,0183PT_G 0,0204 FI_D 0,0262 IT_D 0,1142PT_G 0,1038DE_G 0,0611PT_G 0,0933SE_G 0,0597IT_D 0,0427DE_D 0,0386DE_G 0,0551FI_D 0,0335DE_G 0,0566 DE_G 0,063 PT_G 0,1147FI_G 0,1131FI_G 0,0865IT_D 0,103DE_G 0,0793DE_G 0,0528IT_D 0,0541FI_D 0,0986DE_G 0,0541FI_D 0,0616 PT_G 0,0665 SE_G 0,117IT_D 0,1233SE_G 0,1031SE_G 0,1118GR_G 0,1087FI_G 0,0774FI_G 0,0565GR_G 0,1093IT_D 0,0907IT_D 0,0959 IT_D 0,0782 FI_G 0,1258SE_G 0,1482IT_D 0,1033FI_G 0,1128FI_G 0,1218GR_G 0,1093GR_G 0,1078IT_D 0,1356GR_G 0,1074GR_G 0,1047 GR_G 0,1032

Illustrative results: Electre Tri + DEA With a higher weight on feasibility the classification is good. Classification Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good With a higher weight on feasibility the classification is good. With a higher weight on feasibility the classification is good. Effectiveness Economic Efficiency 2015 2015 DK_D -0,2380 FI_D -0,3 PT_D -0,1939 DK_D -0,238 DK_G -0,1588 PT_D -0,1959 GR_D -0,1332 DK_G -0,1588 UK_G -0,0869 UK_G -0,0917 UK_D -0,0833 UK_D -0,0411 SE_D -0,0293 SE_D -0,0392 IT_G -0,0202 FI_G -0,017 FI_G -0,0170 PT_G -0,009 SE_G -0,0027 SE_G -0,0014 DE_D 0,0178 DE_G 0,025 PT_G 0,0204 IT_G 0,0323 DE_G 0,0566 GR_D 0,0445 FI_D 0,0616 IT_D 0,0728 IT_D 0,0959 DE_D 0,0893 GR_G 0,1047 GR_G 0,2318

Illustrative results: Electre Tri High fuel taxes do not appear to drive the market towards lower CO₂ emissions IRIS Classification proposed with the imposition of a higher weight on economic efficiency (2015) IRIS Classification proposed with the imposition of a higher weight on effectiveness (2015)

Illustrative results: DEA - What can be done to improve? Economic Efficiency DE: reduce the price advantage of diesel; induce changes to price elasticity (e.g. incentives for electric vehicles, use of public transportation, increase of other complementary taxes, exemptions from circulation tax for very low- CO2 vehicles, ) DMUs Tax burden Share of tax on energy prices Absolute value of median price elasticity of energy demand Price advantage of diesel Income elasticity of energy demand Maturity Peers Lambdas DE_G 0-3,43% -0,030-1,96% 0 10 PT_G;FI_G;FI_D 0,144;0,633;0,233 DE_D 0-5,6% -0,105 0 0,084 7 PT_D;DK_G;SE_D 0,699;0,172;0,129 IT_G 0-6,70% -0,070 0 0,231 6 PT_D;DK_G;SE_D 0,699;0,172;0,129 IT_D -0,51% -8,20% -0,027 0 0,498 2 DK_D;SE_D 0,468;0,532 GR_G -1,82% -15,15% -0,130-5,46% 0,940 5 DK_D 1 GR_D -0,27% 0,000-0,380-5,01% 0,953 4,5 PT_D;DK_D 0,114;0,886

Illustrative results: DEA - What can be done to improve? Effectiveness DMUs Tax burden Share of tax on energy prices Absolute value of median price elasticity of energy demand Price advantage of diesel Income elasticity of energy demand Maturity peers lambdas PT_G 0-6,44% -0,051-1,97% 0,462 1 DK_G;DK_D 0,306;0,694 DE_G 0 0-0,091-1,57% 0,520 4 DK_D;IT_G;FI_G 0,104;0,886;0,010 DE_D 0 0-0,03 0 0,704 1,5 UK_D;DK_G;DK_D;GR_D 0,333;0,130;0,06;0,472 IT_D -0,47% 0-0,102-4,72% 0,313 4,5 PT_D;UK_G 0,243;0,757 GR_G -1,36% -1,586% -0,015 0 0,020 4,5 DK_D;GR_D 0,105;0,895 FI_D -0,426% 0-0,053-2,3% 0,190 10 PT_D;UK_G 0,453;0,547

Conclusions/Policy implications High fuel taxes do not appear to drive the market towards lower CO₂ emissions. In some countries the revenue raising appears to be a significant priority. The environmental and other externalities associated with gasoline and diesel use do not support the lower tax rates that currently apply to diesel. Using taxation to lower the relative price for diesel may lead to a rebound effect by encouraging car owners to drive more or to purchase a larger vehicle Fuel should be taxed on the basis of its energy content with similar rates of excise duty applied to gasoline and diesel fuels to avoid market distortions leading to dieselisation. Policymakers have to consider other instruments (based in CO 2 emissions) alongside tax changes to encourage fuel efficient lower-carbon vehicles such as vehicle registration tax, circulation tax, company car taxation, etc. Member States should coordinate their fuel taxation policies.

Future work Consider different metrics based on surveys conducted with the stakeholders involved; Extend the analysis to other complementary measures to encourage fuel efficient lower-carbon vehicles; Explore distributional effects of fuel policies, eventually considering the impacts of revenue recycling; Further extend the analysis to other countries within the EU, explicitly considering the problem of fuel tourism".