LOGISTIK Wissenschaft Internationales Verkehrswesen (63) 6 | 2011 38 C oncerns about global warming have strengthened the interest in detailed information on the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activities. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), approximately 19 % of global energy use and 23 % of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions can be assigned to the transportation sector (IEA, 2009). This high percentage has led to increasing demands by society and governments for environmentally friendly logistics services. Despite the increasing pressure and importance of environmental topics, the IEA outlines in its global study “Transport Energy Eiciency” that energy eiciency measures in the transportation sector have only been implemented to a limited degree, so far (IEA, 2010). Today, Logistics Service Providers (LSPs) are more and more integrated into the complex value chains of manufacturing and trading companies. Since these shippers focus strongly on their core competences, logistics activities are increasingly outsourced. Shippers taking a pioneering role in their sector have started to monitor the emissions not only within their own company but also by value chain partners. However, a meaningful carbon accounting within value chains must seek to include all associated emissions. This requires carbon indicators not only from some but from all involved LSPs according to the same standards and guidelines. Therefore, LSPs are faced with increasing demands by shippers concerning meaningful carbon indicators. Some big international LSPs, such as Deutsche Post DHL, DB Schenker or Hermes are ofensively addressing the issue of carbon accounting. These LSPs have developed company-specific solutions for their carbon accounting and have started to calculate and to report carbon emissions in their daily business. LSPs face, however, several challenges, as no commonly accepted standard is available (Zadek and Schulz, 2010). Therefore, depending on their individual eforts, LSPs currently apply diferent approaches to carbon accounting which results in the fact that carbon indicators presented by various LSPs are not comparable. In order to enhance comparability, international LSPs and shippers have joined forces and set up initiatives with the goal of establishing a standardised and transparent approach to carbon accounting within the transportation sector. Smart- Way Europe in the field of road transport or the Clean Cargo Working Group for sea shipping are examples of just a few of such initiatives (Smart- Way Europe, 2011; BSR, 2011). However, despite the practical relevance as well as ecological and economic importance, far too little attention has been paid to a systematic structuring and analysis of the key areas of carbon accounting. The objective of this article is, therefore, to contribute to the knowledge of carbon accounting at LSPs and especially to present the key areas. Key Areas of Carbon Accounting at LSPs In general, carbon accounting encompasses the systematic capture, preparation and reporting of carbon emissions based on internationally accepted standards. As implied by the term “accounting”, carbon accounting shows many similarities to the basic logics of financial as well as cost accounting, regarding the capture and allocation of relevant cost data based on established standards. For this reason, Deutsche Post DHL, for example, have integrated their carbon accounting into the existing financial and management reporting systems (Gerdemann, 2010). The key areas of carbon accounting at LSPs can be derived from relevant financial and cost accounting literature (Zimmermann et. al. 2003; Eitelwein and Goretzki, 2010): •• choice and application of standards, •• setting company-specific boundaries, •• capture of energy consumption and calculation of carbon emissions and •• allocating emissions. Carbon Accounting - a challenging Task for Logistics Service Providers Carbon accounting is only the basis of a comprehensive carbon management. As implied by the term „accounting“, carbon accounting shows many similarities to the basic logics of financial as well as cost accounting. This article highlights the key areas of carbon accounting and presents the main challenges Logistics Service Providers are faced with. Internationales Verkehrswesen (63) 6 | 2011 39 LOGISTIK Wissenschaft diferent emissions have to be taken into account. In general, emissions can be classified according to the GHGP into three diferent scopes (WBCSD and WRI, 2004; WBCSD and WRI, 2010a): Scope 1: All direct emissions occurring from sources which are owned or controlled by the reporting company (e.g. combustion of fossil fuel in trucks, aircraft and vessels) Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by equipment or operations which are owned or controlled by the reporting company. Scope 3: This scope covers “all other indirect emissions that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions”. For the calculation of a corporate carbon footprint, which includes all scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, an organizational boundary has to be set. Similar to financial accounting, it has to be determined whether the emissions caused by incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures as well as subsidiaries are to be taken into account at all and to which degree. For this, the GHGP of- Choice and Application of Standards In general, standards of carbon accounting define directives and guidelines to ensure a common approach to capture energy consumption, to calculate carbon emissions and to allocate these emissions. Thus, based upon applicable standards, the respective carbon indicators of different LSPs can be enhanced regarding transparency and comparability. In Europe, LSPs mainly revert to the standards provided by international initiatives and organizations (Mußler et. al., 2010). These standards deliver guidelines for the calculation of diferent “carbon footprints” which encompass diferent system boundaries as well as emissions. An overview of important standards for carbon accounting can be found in table 1. However, none of these standards includes guidelines which are explicitly tailored to the requirements of the transportation sector, since they only cover a general framework for manufacturing and trading companies. Therefore, an enhanced interpretation of the standards, especially concerning the calculation of carbon emissions and their allocation, is necessary. To limit the room for interpretation and to increase the comparability of carbon indicators of various LSPs, the European Community has been working on a European standard (DIN EN 16258). This standard which will be published at the end of 2012 will explicitly be tailored to the requirements of the transportation sector. The DIN EN 16258 sets high requirements concerning the capture of energy consumption and the allocation of emissions. The application of this standard increases the level of comparability of carbon indicators within the transportation sector as it provides clear guidelines concerning the quality of the input data for the calculation of carbon indicators. Furthermore, by disclosing the input data used in the calculation process, the transparency of carbon reports within the transportation sector can be improved. Although the standard is not yet in place, DB Schenker, is the first European LSP to practice carbon accounting in compliance with the DIN EN 16258 (DB Schenker, 2011). Setting Company-specific Boundaries To set company-specific boundaries, LSPs, such as Deutsche Post DHL and DB Schenker, have reverted to the directives and guidelines of the GHGP (Deutsche Post DHL, 2011; DB Schenker, 2011). In general, the GHGP sets diferent system boundaries which are in line with the possible outcomes of the standards: the various carbon footprints. It is possible to diferentiate between a corporate carbon footprint, a corporate value chain footprint and a product carbon footprint. Since the product carbon footprint deals mainly with physical products, LSPs only have to set boundaries for the allocation. Depending on whether a corporate carbon footprint or a corporate value chain footprint should be calculated, Organisation / Initiative Name of Standard Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (GHGP) 1) A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard 2) Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard 3) Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard International Organization for Standardization (ISO 4) ISO 14040: 2006: Environmental management - LifIe cycle assessment - Principles and framework 5) ISO 14044: 2006: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines 6) ISO 14064-1: 2006: Greenhouse gases - Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals British Standards Institution (BSI) 7) PAS 2050: 2011: Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services Table 1: Overview of important standards of carbon accounting in Europe Fig. 1: Overview of the scopes and emissions Source: WBCSD & WRI, 2011a LOGISTIK Wissenschaft Internationales Verkehrswesen (63) 6 | 2011 40 scope 3 emissions, they mainly focus on the emissions caused by their subcontractors (Deutsche Post DHL, 2011). Regardless if the emissions are caused by the LSP itself or by a subcontractor, all of these emissions are considered in the corporate value chain footprint. Thus, a better level of comparability of the inventory of emissions between diferent years can be achieved. Furthermore, subcontractors can be compared concerning their carbon eiciency. Another selected category concerns emissions which occur during extraction, production and transportation of fuel or fuel consumed in the generation of electricity. DB Schenker, for example, primarily deals with these fueland energy related emissions under scope- 3 (DB Schenker, 2011). Thus, an enhanced comparability concerning carbon eiciency of various modes of transport can be reached because all relevant emissions which occur during the extraction, production, transport as well as combustion can be taken into account. Table- 2 shows which standard encompasses directives and guidelines for the calculation of the diferent carbon footprints. The number of the standard matches with the numbers used in table-1. Capture of Energy Consumption and Calculation of Carbon Emissions An essential basis for carbon accounting is the systematic capture of energy consumption data. During the combustion of fossil fuels, carbon emissions are released, e. g. the combustion of one litre diesel causes 2.63 kg carbon emissions (Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, 2011). Considering road freight transport, the focus is primarily on the capture of fuel consumption. For the calculation of carbon emissions various data is needed: •• tour specific data (e. g. actual or average kilometres), •• vehicle specific data (e. g. actual or average fuel consumption) and •• shipment specific data (e. g. weight, volume, start and final location). In practice, the data quality varies from company real data to estimated data. The capture of energy consumption based on company real data requires greater efort, but delivers the highest data accuracy. The necessary data may be generally available and stored in various IT-systems, however, the systems are typically not designed to this data output. Depending on the data quality, diferent methods to capture energy consumption and to calculate carbon emissions can be applied. In general, there are three diferent methods which all comply with the international standards of carbon accounting (Zadek and Schulz, 2010): •• fuel-based method, •• distance-based method and •• activity-based method. fers two approaches: the equity share approach and the control approach which are comparable with existing accounting directives. In addition, the control approach can be diferentiated into financial or operational control. •• Equity share approach: A company must account for emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. Control approach: •• Financial Control approach: A company must account for 100 percent of emissions over which it has financial control and does not have to account for any emissions from operations in which it owns interest but does not have financial control. •• Operational control approach: A company must account for 100 percent of emissions over which it has operational control and does not have to account for any emissions from operations in which it owns interest but does not have operational control (WBCSD and WRI, 2004). Within these organizational boundaries all emissions which occur from owned or controlled assets in the functional areas of transport, warehousing, transhipment and administration have to be considered for the calculation of a corporate carbon footprint. A corporate value chain footprint includes scope- 1, scope- 2 and additionally scope- 3 emissions and is, according to the GHGP, currently a facultative option (WBCSD and WRI, 2011a). Although the GHGP provides a systematic framework, LSPs, in particular, face several challenges when trying to calculate a corporate value chain footprint. As these standard's guidelines are mainly tailored to the requirements of shippers, they recommend the inclusion of all emissions which occur in the value chain of the respective reporting company including both upstream and downstream emissions. However, since LSPs are integrated in various value chains, it is not appropriate to consider all of these scope 3 emissions. In fact, a large amount of emissions resulting from the LSPs activities occur at other companies, and it is therefore advisable for LSPs to consider selected categories to account for their scope-3 emissions. For instance, emissions which occur from subcontractors can be mentioned as one of these scope- 3 categories. DHL, for example, states in their annual sustainability report that under Scope 1 (Direct emisions from owned and controlled sources) Scope 2 (Indirect emissions from the generation of electricity) Scope 3 (Indirect emissions which occur at value chain partners) Corporate Carbon Footprint Standards 1,6 (DIN EN 16258) Standards 1,6 (DIN EN 16258) Corporate Value Chain Footprint Standard 3 (DIN EN 16258) Product Carbon Footprint (Physical Products) Standards 2,4, 5,7 (DIN EN 16258) Standards 2,4, 5,7 (DIN EN 16258) Table 2: Overview of the connections between standards, scopes and footprints Internationales Verkehrswesen (63) 6 | 2011 41 LOGISTIK Wissenschaft time. An overview of the diferent methods for calculating emissions in road freight transport can be found in figure 2. Allocating Emissions Allocation means that the calculated emissions have to be assigned to shippers and company specific reference values based on clear and transparent allocation factors. The results of the allocation logic are various carbon indicators. The key task is comparable to cost accounting regarding the consideration of overhead costs and the determination of appropriate allocation factors. Shippers require carbon indicators of their LSPs on the one hand to calculate their own corporate value chain footprint and on the other hand to calculate a product carbon footprint. A product carbon footprint accounts for emissions at an individual physical product level and encompasses all associated emissions which occur during a product's life cycle. Depending on the requirements of the shippers, LSPs have to provide carbon indicators in various granularities (e. g. emissions per shipper, per shipment or per product). In general, for the calculation of carbon indicators on an individual product level, the directives and guidelines of the standards have to be taken into account. They state that at least all emissions from “attributable processes” shall be included in the allocation logic. The GHGP defines “attributable processes” as processes that are directly connected to a specific product. Non attributable processes are not required, but recommended to be included. For the allocation logic, only scope-1 and scope-2 emissions of the LSPs have to be taken into account (WBCSD and WRI, 2011b). Furthermore, an appropriate allocation factor which accurately reflects the contribution of the product to the caused emissions has to be specified. During the transport of the product by road Fuel-based Method: The fuel-based method shall be applied if absolute fuel consumption data is available. The absolute fuel consumption can be measured directly by special technology, e. g. telematics systems or by the calculation of the exact amount of fuel consumed based on fuel invoices. Since real data is used, this method achieves the highest level of precision. The following formula shows the basic logic of the fuel-based method. CE = FC absolute x EF fuel-oriented (1) Legend: CE = Carbon Emissions [CO 2 ] DT = Distance travelled [km] EF fuel-oriented = Emission Factor fuel-oriented [CO 2 / l] EF performance-oriented = Emission Factor performance-oriented [CO 2 / tkm] FC absolute = Fuel Consumption absolute [l] FC average = Fuel Consumption average [l/ km] LC = Load Capacity [t] TW = Transported Weight [t] Distance-based Method: This method requires data on the distance travelled and data on the average fuel consumption. If real data of the distance travelled is not available, estimated data has to be calculated by using e. g. mathematical methods. Concerning the average fuel consumption, a higher level of precision can be reached, if the degree of utilization of the vehicle used can be taken into account. Formula- 3 explains the basic logic of the distancebased method. Formula 2 shows how the degree of utilization can be considered concerning the calculation of average fuel consumption. FC utilization average = FC average empty + (FC average full - FC average empty )/ (LC actual / LC full ) (2) FC calculated absolute = FC utilization average * DT (3) CE = FC calculated absolute x EF fuel-oriented (4) Activity-based Method: The activity-based method requires only average values concerning distance and weight. As a consequence, the results show the lowest level of precision and should only be used when no other data can be provided. Formula 5 gives an overview about the logic of the activity-based method. CE = TW * DT * EF performance-oriented (5) The range of possible input data and the variety of applicable calculation methods for the capture of energy consumption and the calculation of carbon emissions show that calculated carbon emissions of LSPs are not comparable at this LOGISTIK Wissenschaft Internationales Verkehrswesen (63) 6 | 2011 42 “management”, carbon management encompasses the organizing, planning, controlling and monitoring of carbon emissions. To eiciently and efectively manage carbon emissions organisational aspects should be one of the first fields of action. The provision of qualified staf to deal with the topic, as well as a clear determination of the areas of responsibility are just two of such measures. Since the management of emissions demands a company-wide efort and companywide decisions, it is also crucial that the employees involved are provided with appropriate decision power. Carbon management must be anchored into the existing organizational structures and established management systems. According to the current supply chain report published by the Carbon Disclosure Project, 56 % of international manufacturing and trading companies emphasize that an efective carbon management will become an important criterion for the selection of LSPs (Carbon Disclosure Project, 2011). Since environmental topics have developed into an important strategic issue for LSPs, the implementation of carbon accounting is just the first step for LSPs to meet the increasing demands of shippers and society concerning environmentally friendly logistics services. The DIN EN 16258, in particular, which could develop into an important standard for LSPs, sets high requirements for carbon accounting. Due to the complexity, international as well as small and medium sized LSPs should deal intensively with carbon accounting as soon as possible. Thus, LSPs will be able to position themselves as sustainable companies and they will be able to sustainably remain competitive on the market. ɷ freight, a physical allocation factor, such as the weight or the volume of the product, is preferred according to the GHGP. Ideally, the physical allocation factor should be determined by the limiting factor of the specific form of transportation to consider the individual level of utilization (WBCSD and WRI, 2011b). To define appropriate allocation factors presents a main challenge especially in the field of distribution logistics, as these tours are characterised by many stops and a wide range of diferent products. Company specific carbon indicators can be chosen according to the individual requirements of the LSP, as no specific guidelines of the standards have to be taken into account. This means that there are no specific rules as to which emissions have to be included and which allocation factor should be used. In general, the company specific carbon indicators can be classified into: •• general carbon indicators (e. g. emissions per site [CO 2 ], per shipper [CO 2 ]), •• performance carbon indicators (e. g. emissions per haulage capacity [CO 2 / tkm], per distance [CO 2 / km]) and •• capacity carbon indicators (e.g. emissions per weight [CO 2 / kg], per volume [CO 2 / m 3 ]). Company specific carbon indicators should function primarily as a profound basis to identify main sources of emissions and to prioritize adequate measures to mitigate carbon emissions within the company. Implications and Outlook In this article, we have highlighted the key areas of carbon accounting and presented the main challenges LSPs are faced with. Carbon accounting is, however, only the basis of comprehensive carbon management. As implied by the term Fig. 2: Overview of the methods to capture energy consumption and to calculate carbon emissions LOGISTIK Wissenschaft Markus Gogolin, Dipl.-Ing. Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Universität St.Gallen Lehrstuhl für Logistikmanagement markus.gogolin@unisg.ch Wolfgang Stölzle, Prof. Dr. Ordinarius Universität St.Gallen Lehrstuhl für Logistikmanagement wolfgang.stoelzle@unisg.ch Thorsten Klaas-Wissing, Dr. Vize-Direktor Universität St.Gallen Lehrstuhl für Logistikmanagement thorsten.klaas@unisg.ch REFERENCES Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (2011): Berechnung der CO 2 -Emissionen. http: / / www.izu.bayern.de/ praxis/ detail_praxis. php? pid=0203010101217. (Retrieved 24 September 2011). BSR (2010): Beyond the Factory Gates: How Brands Improve Supply Chain Sustainability Through Shipping and Logistics Clean Cargo Working Group Tools for Measuring and Reducing Environmental Impacts. http: / / www.bsr.org/ reports/ CCWG_ Report_Mar_2011_FINAL.pdf. (Retrieved 15 September 2011). Carbon Disclosure Project (2011): Supply Chain Report 2011. https: / / www.cdproject.net/ en-US/ Results/ Pages/ reports.aspx. (Retrieved 17 September 2011). DB Schenker (2011): Umweltbroschüre 2011. http: / / www. dbschenker.com/ site/ shared/ de/ dateianhaenge/ infomaterial/ umweltbroschuere__de__2011.pdf. (Retrieved 17 September 2011). Deutsche Post DHL (2011): Living Responsibility: Bericht zur Unternehmensverantwortung 2010. http: / / www.dp-dhl.com/ de/ verantwortung/ allgemeines/ downloads.html. (Retrieved 17 September 2011). EITELEEIN, O., GORETZKI; L. (2010): Carbon Controlling und Accounting erfolgreich implementieren: Status Quo und Ausblick. In: Zeitschrift für Controlling und Management. 54 (1), pp. 23-31. GERDEMANN, R. (2010): E zientes Carbon Accounting bei Deutsche Post DHL. In: Controlling and Management. 54 (1), pp. 20-22. International Energy Agency (2009): Transport Energy E ciency: Implementation of IEA Recommendations since 2009 and next steps. http: / / www.iea.org/ publications/ free_new_ Desc.asp? PUBS_ID=2133. (Retrieved 10 September 2011). International Energy Agency (2010): Transport, Energy and CO2: Moving Toward Sustainability, OECD Publishing. http: / / www.iea.org/ papers/ 2010/ transport_energy_e ciency.pdf. (Retrieved 10 September 2011). MUSSLER, P., WOLFGARTEN, S., PAULUS, A. (2010): Methodik und Aussagekraft von Klimabilanzen. In: URBAN, A., HALM, I. (Hrsg.): Praktikable Klimaschutz-Potenziale in der Abfallwirtschaft. Kassel 2010. pp. 75-89. SmartWay Europe (2011): SmartWay Europe Initiative Towards a multi-industry voluntary programme for monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions in road transport. http: / / cleanairinitiative.org/ portal/ sites/ default/ files/ presentations/ Bjoern_Hannappel_-_DPDHL_-_SmartWay_Europe_Initiative_-_May2011.pdf. (Retrieved 16 September 2011). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and World Resources Institute (WRI) (2004): A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard http: / / www.ghgprotocol. org/ files/ ghgp/ public/ ghg-protocol-revised.pdf. (Retrieved 10 September 2011). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and World Resources Institute (WRI) (2011a): Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. http: / / www.ghgprotocol.org/ files/ ghgp/ Corporate%20Value%20 C h a in % 2 0(S co p e % 2 03 ) % 2 0 A cco u ntin g % 2 0 a n d % 2 0 Reporting%20Standard.pdf. (Retrieved 2 November 2011). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and World Resources Institute (WRI) (2011b): Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. http: / / www.ghgprotocol. org/ files/ ghgp/ Product%20Life%20Cycle%20Accounting%20 and%20Reporting%20Standard.pdf. (Retrieved 2 November 2011). ZADEK, H., SCHULZ, R. (2010): Methods for the Calculation of CO 2 Emissions in Logistics Activities. In: DANGELMAIER, W. et al. (Eds.): Advanced Manufacturing and Sustainable Logistics. Berlin, Heidelberg 2010, pp. 263-268. ZIMMERMANN, W., FRIES, H.P., HOCH, G. (2003): Betriebliches Rechnungswesen. München 2003. DVV Media Group GmbH | Nordkanalstr. 36 | 20097 Hamburg | Tel. +49 40/ 237 14-114 | kirsten.striedieck@dvvmedia.com Heute schon wissen, worüber Ihre Branche morgen spricht! Mehr als 900 Seiten Nutzwert-Informationen im Jahr. Recherchiert und exklusiv aubereitet für Sie vom Branchenexperten Markus Schmidt-Auerbach. Verlegt bei DVV Media Group, dem Verlag der DVZ und Eurailpress. ÖPNV aktuell, der neue, unabhängige Wirtschaftstitel für den gesamten Markt des ö entlichen Personenverkehrs. Zweimal wöchentlich: Ausführlicher Branchenreport mit Nachrichten, Hintergrundberichten, Analysen und Kommentaren Express: Eilmeldungen zu wichtigen Ereignissen und Anlässen Kostenloser Zugang zum Online-Archiv von ÖPNV aktuell mit Volltextsuche in allen bisher erschienenen Ausgaben Die Polizei hat die Büroräume durchsucht und Unterlagen sichergestellt. Gegen den früheren Geschäftsführer ermittelt die Staatsanwaltschaft Frankfurt. Der bisherige Geschäftsführer ist mit sofortiger Wirkung abberufen worden, weil das Vertrauen laut Aufsichtsratsvorsitzendem, Landrat Michael Cyriax (CDU), „massiv erschüttert“ ist. Zwar gelte der frühere Geschäftsführer bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils als unschuldig. Die Vorwürfe wögen aber derart schwer, dass es der MTV nicht zuzumuten sei, weiter von ihm vertreten zu werden, so Cyriax. Über ein externes Unternehmen soll Scholz laut Mitteilung von Cyriax einer Firma, die ihm selbst gehört, Aufträge in erheblicher Höhe verschafft haben. Weitere rechtliche Konsequenzen würden geprüft. Nähere Details und mögliche Schadenssummen wollte Cyriax mit Verweis auf die laufenden Ermittlungen der Staatsanwaltschaft nicht nennen. Die Sprecherin der Staatsanwaltschaft, Doris Möller-Scheu, präzisierte gegenüber „ÖPNV aktuell“ die Vorwürfe: „Dem Beschuldigten wird Untreue zum Nachteil seines Arbeitgebers vorgeworfen. Er soll im Auftrag des MTV Beratungsleistungen bei einer Firma in Auftrag gegeben haben. Diese Firma soll dann eine von ihm betriebene Firma beauftragt haben und er soll auf diese Weise 648.000 EUR erhalten haben.“ Bei einer polizeilichen Durchsuchung der Büroräume wurden Unterlagen sichergestellt. Diese müssen jetzt ausgewertet werden. Dabei muss geklärt werden, so Möller-Scheu, ob die Beratungsleistungen tatsächlich für den MTV erbracht wurden und ob es sich um Leistungen handelte, die der Beschuldigte seinem Arbeitgeber aus dem Arbeitsverhältnis möglicherweise ohnehin schuldete. Im Telefonbuch ist unter dem Namen Ralf Scholz die Nahverkehrs-Consulting NCRS Ralf Scholz, Rodgau, zu finden. Scholz wollte zu den Vorwürfen gegenüber „ÖPNV aktuell“ mit Hinweis auf das laufende Verfahren nicht Stellung beziehen. Dabei ist eine Erhöhung um 1 Mrd. EUR denkbar. Auf diese Summe hat sich nach Aussagen in Unionskreisen der Koalitionsausschuss von CDU/ CSU und FDP vergangene Woche im Grundsatz verständigt (ÖPNV aktuell 85/ 11). Im Haushaltsausschuss am Mittwoch stimmten die Koalitionsfraktionen CDU/ CSU und FDP laut Bundestagsmitteilung für den jetzigen Etatentwurf. Die Sprecher der Koalition wiesen allerdings darauf hin, dass der Etat „strukturell“ unterfinanziert sei, und das seit mehreren Jahren. Der Elektrobus vom Typ E-Cobus wird zunächst für sechs Wochen in Offenbach getestet. Ziel ist dabei, seine Akzeptanz bei Mitarbeitern und Fahrgästen der Offenbacher Verkehrsbetriebe (OVB) zu ermitteln sowie festzustellen, in welchen Punkten Verbesserungen an dem Fahrzeugkonzept vorgenommen werden sollten. Im Fokus stehen dabei die Energieeffizienz von Heizung und Klimatisierung ebenso wie eine Steigerung des Federungskomforts. Bis Mitte Dezember verkehrt der E-Cobus auf der rund 15 km langen Linie 103 von Mühlheim/ Main über das Offenbacher Zentrum nach Frankfurt-Bornheim. Wie OVB-Geschäftsführer Volker Lampmann berichtet, kam der Einsatz gerade auf dieser Relation nicht von ungefähr, verbindet sie doch drei Aufgabenträger: Landkreis und Stadt Offenbach sowie die Metropole Frankfurt/ Main. Außerdem führt sie am Offenbacher Markt vorbei, wo seit Mai 2011 eine Verleihstation für Elektroautos und Pedelecs in Betrieb ist. Damit bieten die OVB ihren Kunden eine lückenlose elektrische Mobilitätskette an und übernehmen auf diesem Gebiet eine Vorreiterrolle. Lampmann sieht das Unternehmen für den Elektrobus-Einsatz gut gerüstet. Auf dem Betriebshof wurde eine Schnellladestation eingerichtet, zehn Fahrer und vier Werkstattmitarbeiter wurden für den Umgang mit der Hochvolttechnik geschult. Zur Vorstellung des neuen Elektrobusses sprach Offenbachs frisch im Amt bestätigter Oberbürgermeister Horst Schneider (SPD) von dem guten Gefühl zu wissen, dass Offenbach elektrisch mobil sei. Gleichzeitig brachte er aber auch seine Befürchtung zum Ausdruck, dass der Bund die Rhein-Main-Region bei der Auswahl der zukünftigen „Schaufensterregionen für Elektromobilität“ möglicherweise nicht mehr berücksichtigt. Noch aber ist Rhein-Main eine von neun Modellregionen Elektromobilität. Alle zusammen werden mit insgesamt 130 Mio. EUR aus dem Konjunkturpaket II gefördert. Etwa 26 Mio. EUR aus diesen Mitteln fließen in den ÖPNV. Koordiniert werden die vielfältigen Ansätze im Rhein-Main-Gebiet durch die Regionale Projektleitstelle Elektromobilität, an deren Spitze seit kurzem Anja Georgi steht, im Hauptberuf Geschäftsführerin der Regiegesellschaft Nahverkehr in Offenbach (NIO) (ÖPNV aktuell 72/ 11). Im Gegensatz zu OB Schneider zeigte sie sich zuversichtlich, dass Rhein-Main eine von bundesweit drei bis fünf „Schaufensterregionen“ werde. Die Bewerbungsphase für das neue Förderprogramm hat gerade begonnen. Anfang 2012 will der Bund die neuen Partner küren. Bis 2013 erhalten diese „Schaufensterregionen“ 180 Mio. EUR vom Bund für Forschung, Seit dem 1. November 2010 steht Michael Hahn als Geschäftsführer an der Spitze von DB Stadtverkehr bzw. als Vorstand an der Spitze von DB Regio Bus. Auf der „DB Regio Signale“ hat er am 2. November in Offenbach jetzt die neue Strategie der „Gummisparte“ dargelegt. Eine Kernaussage dabei war, dass die heute etwa 4.000 eigenwirtschaftlichen Genehmigungen der Gruppe nicht mehr automatisch verlängert würden. „Wir werden für jeden Verkehr zukünftig eine Bewertung der Chancen und Risiken durchführen“, kündigt der Manager an. Dies könne verkürzte Antragszeiten bedeuten, wenn zum Beispiel Schulentwicklungspläne noch nicht aktualisiert wurden, aber auch den völligen Rückzug aus heute noch eigenwirtschaftlichen Engagements bedeuten. Hintergrund dieser Entwicklung sei unter anderem der Schülerrückgang und die Entleerung ländlicher Räume. Sie würden zu deutlichen, teilweise sogar dramatischen Fahrgastrückgängen führen - „und das nicht nur im Osten“. Dagegen würden die Ballungsräume weiter zulegen. Infolgedessen müssten sich Aufgabenträger in der Fläche noch stärker als bislang mit der Frage auseinandersetzen, wie sie eine angemessene Versorgung ihrer verbliebenen Bürger sicherstellen. Der Nahverkehr gerate dabei viel stärker als heute in den Wettbewerb um öffentliche Mittel. Ganz auf Linie mit dem Motto der hauseigenen Veranstaltung: „Gemeinsam Impulse setzen“ appellierte Hahn hier an die Branche, bei der Politik gemeinsam für die Belange des Nahverkehrs zu werben. Die Vielzahl an Aufgabenträgern, auch davon ist Hahn überzeugt, wird mit einer Vielzahl von Gestaltungen auf die örtlichen Herausforderungen reagieren. Am liebsten wäre dem Busvorstand, wenn die zuständige Behörde weiterhin auf die Kompetenz des Verkehrsunternehmens vor Ort setzt und ihm, so wörtlich, eine Rolle als „Full-Service-Provider“ zubilligt. Aber im Prinzip seien für DB Bus „alle Vertragsarten“ denkbar. Im Extremfall werde es dazu kommen, dass sich der Aufgabenträger auf den freigestellten Schülerverkehr konzentriere, wie dies gerade im Verkehrsverbund Trier (VRT) diskutiert wird (ÖPNV aktuell 84/ 11). Noch vor Ende des Übergangszeitraums der EU-Verordnung 1370/ 07 am 3. Dezember 2019 rechnet Hahn damit, dass viele heute eigenwirtschaftliche Verkehre nicht wieder un- Sichern Sie sich jetzt Ihr Probeabo: www.oepnvaktuell.de