Advertisement

State Measures in Support of Sustainable Mobility Infrastructure: The Case of Estonia, the Netherlands, and Norway

  • Ana Trías
Chapter
Part of the Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship book series (EALELS, volume 5)

Abstract

This paper explores the legal instruments Member States can use to accomplish supranational targets to encourage the development of infrastructure for the refuelling and recharging of clean and efficient vehicles for road transportation. The case study examines in depth the concrete legal measures taken by Estonia, the Netherlands and Norway, which are particularly successful in the electrification of road transport , and analyses the supranational assessment of these strategies under state aid law.

References

  1. Arthur B (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99:116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Committee of the Regions (2013) Opinion of the committee of the regions on ‘Clean Power for Transport’. OJ C 280, 27 September 2013. 66–74Google Scholar
  3. Committee on Transport and Tourism (2013) Report A7-0444/2013 on Amendments 001-119 to the Proposal for a directive on alternative fuels infrastructure. COM(2013)0018 – C7-0022/2013 – 2013/0012(COD)Google Scholar
  4. Daintith T (1987) Law as an instrument of economic policy: comparative and critical approaches. Walter De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75:332–337Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2010a) Commission communication, Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2010b) Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles. COM(2010) 186 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2011) Commission white paper, roadmap to a single European transport area — towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM(2011) 144 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2012a) Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest. OJ C 8, 11 January 2012. 4–14. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2012b) Communication from the Commission, European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011). OJ C 8, 11 January 2012. 15–22. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2013a) Commission Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. COM(2013) 18 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2013b) Commission Staff Working Document, Actions towards a comprehensive EU framework on LNG for shipping, accompanying the Communication from the Commission on Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy. SWD/2013/04 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2013c) Commission Staff Working Document on impact assessment accompanying the document “Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure”. SWD/2013/05 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2016a) Commission Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union C/2016/2946. OJ C 262. 1–50. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2016b) Commission Communication, “A European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, a milestone towards cooperative, connected and automated mobility. COM(2016) 766 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2016c) Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). COM(2016) 767 final. 2016/0382 (COD). BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2017) Commission communication of 20 July 2017, A European strategy for low-emission mobility. SWD(2016) 244. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. European Economic and Social Committee (2013a) European economic and social committee, opinion on the communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions – clean power for transport: a European alternative fuels strategy, COM(2013) 17 finalGoogle Scholar
  19. European Economic and Social Committee (2013b) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy” COM(2013) 17 final and the “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure”, COM(2013) 18 final – 2013/12 (COD). OJ C 271, 19.9.2013. 111–115Google Scholar
  20. European Parliament (2013) Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 15 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2014/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2013)0012Google Scholar
  21. European Parliament (2014) Position adopted at first reading on 15 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2014/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2013)0012Google Scholar
  22. Hancher L (2016) Greening transport up to 2020 and beyond. Florence School of Regulation. http://fsr.eui.eu/greening-transport-2020-beyond
  23. Joller L, Varblane U (2015) Learning from an electromobility living lab: experiences from the Estonian ELMO programme. Case studies on transport policy. Elsevier, TartuGoogle Scholar
  24. Meeus L, Hadush S (2016) The emerging regulatory practice for new businesses related to distribution grids. Florence School of Regulation; policy briefs; 2016/02. European University Institute, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins R (2003) Technological lock-in. International Society for Ecological Economics Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/techlkin.pdf
  26. Slocock B (2002) The market economy investor principle. European Commission Competition Policy Newsletter 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Trías
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for European Integration Studies, University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations