Europaudvalget 2015
KOM (2015) 0341
Offentligt
1538403_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 15.7.2015
SWD(2015) 139 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a
framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU
{COM(2015) 341 final}
{SWD(2015) 140 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1.
2.
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
4.
4.1.
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.
4.2.
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
5.
6.
6.1.
6.1.1.
6.1.2.
6.1.3.
Executive Summary Sheet ........................................................................................... 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 7
Impact Assessment Steering Group ............................................................................. 7
Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 7
Use of Expertise and Consultation of interested parties .............................................. 8
External expertise......................................................................................................... 8
Consultation of interested parties................................................................................. 8
Review of the current policy and problem definition .................................................. 9
The problem ................................................................................................................. 9
The basic problem ........................................................................................................ 9
The current problem..................................................................................................... 9
Relationship with other energy efficiency and climate policies ................................ 11
Evaluation of the current policy framework .............................................................. 12
Scope of the evaluation .............................................................................................. 12
Achievements of the legislative framework............................................................... 13
Problems with the current legislation and implementation........................................ 18
The baseline: How will the problem evolve?............................................................. 23
Who is affected and how? .......................................................................................... 25
Justification of EU action........................................................................................... 26
Objectives................................................................................................................... 27
Policy options............................................................................................................. 28
Measures to address the problems.............................................................................. 28
Measures to address problems related to Energy Labelling....................................... 28
Measures to address problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign ...... 31
Measures to address problems related to (predominantly) Ecodesign....................... 36
2
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
6.2.
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
6.2.4.
6.2.5.
6.2.6.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.2.1.
7.2.2.
7.2.3.
7.2.4.
8.
9.
Policy options............................................................................................................. 38
Option 0: no changes, baseline................................................................................... 38
Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework.......................... 39
Option 1+: Option 1 combined with some improvements in the legal framework,
notably for energy labelling ....................................................................................... 39
Option 2: Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling ....................... 40
Option 3: Comprehensive reform of ecodesign and energy labelling extending the
scope to non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance ............. 41
Suboption to Options 1+, 2 and 3: merge ecodesign and energy labelling into one
legal instrument.......................................................................................................... 42
Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 43
Approach .................................................................................................................... 43
Impacts of options ...................................................................................................... 45
Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 45
Economic impact........................................................................................................ 49
Social impact.............................................................................................................. 54
Impacts of merging ecodesign and energy labelling.................................................. 56
Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 58
Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 63
Annex 1 – Use of expertise and consultation of interested parties .......................................... 64
Annex 2 – Detailed presentation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directive and their
implementation........................................................................................................... 90
Annex 3 – Analysis of market surveillance by member states ................................................ 97
Annex 4 – The 2012 review of the Ecodesign Directive ....................................................... 100
Annex 5 – Description of the model and modelling assumptions.......................................... 102
Annex 6 – The baseline – product sectors and consumer expenditure .................................. 106
Annex 7 – Product registration database: practical details .................................................... 109
Annex 8 – Transition between different labels – practical details ......................................... 110
Annex 9 – Administrative burden calculation........................................................................ 112
Annex 10 – Ambition level of measures................................................................................ 118
3
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0004.png
1.
E
XECUTIVE
S
UMMARY
S
HEET
Impact assessment on Review of the Energy Labelling Directive and the Ecodesign Directive
A. Need for action
Why? What is the problem being addressed?
Maximum 11 lines
The basic problem that products can have a negative impact on the environment depending on how they are
made, used and disposed is addressed by the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives. However, problems
have arisen in the implementation of the Directives. Most products are now in the top classes of the energy label
making it more difficult for consumers to distinguish between models. Moreover, the "A+", "A++" and "A+++"
classes introduced during the previous revision of the Energy Labelling Directive have shown to be less effective
in persuading consumers to buy more efficient products than the A to G scale. Further, there is non-compliance
with ecodesign and labelling requirements leading to a loss of about 10% of envisaged energy savings, in part
related to weak enforcement by national market surveillance authorities. Evaluation also revealed further
problems with the current policy framework and implementation. These problems do not only affects the potential
energy and environmental savings targeted by the policy, but also affect consumers as their energy bills are not
reduced by as much as is envisaged.
What is this initiative expected to achieve?
Maximum 8 lines
The main objective is to reduce energy consumption (and associated energy bills) and other significant
environmental impacts of products by ensuring consumers are informed in a relevant and easy-to-understand
way and allowing industry to transform environmental challenges into economic opportunities. In terms of energy
savings the current 10% loss of savings due to non-compliance is a specific target, but also potential further
savings through other improvements are to be explored. In addition, a main objective is to provide a simplified
policy framework that is apt for purpose and robust to future developments.
What is the value added of action at the EU level?
Maximum 7 lines
The objective of reducing negative environmental impacts of products, in particular energy use, cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States, because this would lead to divergent national provisions and
procedures (while having similar objectives) that would generate undue costs for industry (and eventually
consumers) and constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU. Acting at the EU level is the
only way to ensure that requirements and labels for products placed on the market are equal in all Member
States, thereby ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market underpinned by Article 26 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
B. Solutions
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred
choice or not? Why?
Maximum 14 lines
One non-legislative option and three legislative options representing varying degrees of the extent of reform of
the Directives have been formulated. The non-legislative option ("1") includes improvements within the existing
regulatory framework. The first legislative option ("1+") combines the non-legislative measures with changes to
the Energy Labelling Directive to address the layout of the label and requiring registration prior to placing labels
on the market. The second legislative option ("2") adds to the first one also registration of products covered by
ecodesign and requires product to be third-party tested (instead of in-house). The third legislative option ("3") is
a complete overhaul of the framework extending the scope of the Directive to all products, not just energy-
related products; in order to better address non-energy environmental impacts. For the legislative options
separate sub-options are defined concerning the layout of the label, with energy efficiency scale ratings of
respectively A+++ to D (baseline), A-G, 0-100 and 9-3. The preferred option is option 1+ combined with the sub-
option of the A-G scale for the label. This option achieves significantly better impacts than Options 0 and 1.
While options 2 and 3 achieve even better results, they are questionable with regard to international obligations
and for option 3 also for the principle of proportionality. The A-G label, shows the best results and its additional
administrative costs are more than offset by its superior effect on consumers related monetary benefits.
4
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0005.png
Who supports which option?
Maximum 7 lines
Option 1 has little support from stakeholders, while Option 1+ has significant support from stakeholders: the vast
majority is of the view that the Energy Labelling Directive needs to be changed to achieve energy savings closer
to the full economic technical potential. Option 2, revising also the Ecodesign Directive, is supported by a smaller
share of stakeholders. In particular industry interest groups are not convinced about the need for change of the
Ecodesign Directive. Green NGOs support option 3. The A+++ to D and the 9-3 label do not have much support
from stakeholders. The vast majority supports an A-G label, though not all manufacturers and retailers do. The
0-100 label is supported by some industry interest groups.
C. Impacts of the preferred option
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
Maximum 12 lines
Approximate yearly impact, 2030:
Energy savings: 552 TWh primary energy
Consumer savings € 10-30 billion
Additional commercial revenue € 34 billion
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
Maximum 12 lines
Administrative and compliance costs are approximately:
€ 7-12 million per year for manufacturers
€ 3-4 million per year for dealers
€ 3 million per year for the Commission
Given that compliance is mandatory, manufacturers and dealers should be able to pass these costs on to
consumers, for whom they would be more than offset against their monetary benefits. There are no other
negative impacts.
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?
Maximum 8 lines
The positive impact on revenues affects larger businesses and SMEs and micro sized enterprises in the same
way. A different regime for micros/SMEs cannot be justified. All retailers should be subject to the same rules as
energy labels are only useful for consumers if all products are labelled in all retail outlets. There are few SMEs
manufacturers and no micros. The same rules should apply to all to ensure fair competition in the single market.
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?
Maximum 4 lines
There are no additional impacts on national budgets/administrations.
Will there be other significant impacts?
Max 6 lines
In case of revision of Energy Labelling and/or Ecodesign, a revision from Directive to Regulation and removing
overlap with the Market Surveillance Regulation would lead to simplification.
D. Follow up
When will the policy be reviewed?
Maximum 4 lines
A review clause 5-10 years after adoption would be included.
5
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0006.png
2.
I
NTRODUCTION
The Energy Labelling Directive
1
requires the Commission to review the effectiveness of the
Directive and its delegated acts by 31 December 2014.
The Ecodesign Directive
2
required the Commission to review the effectiveness of the
Directive and its implementing measures by 2012. That review
3
concluded that no immediate
revision was necessary, but that the Directive could be reviewed again along with the review
of the Energy Labelling Directive, since the effects of ecodesign implementing regulations
and energy labelling delegated regulations applicable to the same energy-related products are
often linked and complementary.
This impact assessment comprises the outcome of the review of the Energy Labelling Directive
and the Ecodesign Directive. It focusses on the framework Directives and not on the individual
implementing regulations or any new energy-related products that may in future be addressed
under this framework through the Ecodesign Working Plan. Chapter 3 summarises the procedural
issues and the consultation of interested parties. Chapter 4 sets out the problem definition, the
conclusions of the evaluation of existing policy, and the outstanding problems and their
underlying drivers. Chapter 5 describes the policy objectives. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present the
options, impact analysis, and comparison of options, respectively. Monitoring and evaluation
issues are considered in Chapter 9.
This impact assessment supports a new legislative proposal on Energy Labelling. It does not
support a revision of the Ecodesign Directive.
Figure 1: The energy label for washing machines
1
2
3
Directive 2010/30/EU, OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1
Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10
COM(2012) 765 final
6
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
7
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0008.png
3.
3.1.
P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES
Impact Assessment Steering Group
Lead DGs: DG Energy, DG Enterprise and Industry
Agenda planning /WP reference: 2013/ENER+/036
Impact assessment steering group (IASG): The impact assessment work was followed by the
Inter-Service Steering Group (ISG) on energy efficiency which met 3 times in February -
November 2014. The Steering Group consisted of: DG Agriculture, DG Budget, DG Climate
Action, DG Competition, DG Connect, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, DG Employment,
Social Affairs and Inclusion, DG Environment, Eurostat, the Executive Agency for Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises, DG Health and Consumers, Infrastructure and logistics in Brussels,
DG Internal Market and Services, the Joint Research Centre, DG Justice, the Legal Service, DG
Mobility and Transport, DG Regional Policy, DG Research and Innovation, the Secretariat
General, DG Taxation and Customs Union, and DG Trade.
3.2.
Impact Assessment Board
The Impact Assessment Board of the European Commission assessed a draft version of the
present impact assessment report and issued its opinions on 5 and 16 June 2015
4
. The Impact
Assessment Board made several recommendations and, in the light of the latter, the final impact
assessment report
inter alia:
−
clarifies the scope of the review and this impact assessment;
−
explains the relationship with the Energy Efficiency Directive, the
Emission Trading
System and the Effort Sharing in the non-ETS sectors;
−
provides information on expected energy savings and their cost-effectiveness for
existing product-specific measures and for potential additional product groups;
−
explains where there are differences for different products groups with regard to the
effect of the legislation;
−
clarifies that the lifetime of products that is used in the analysis is the
economic
lifetime, which takes into account consumer behaviour on discarding certain products
before the end of their
technical
lifetime;
−
elaborates on the role of the market surveillance regulation and why it is not expected
that the proposal for a new market surveillance regulation will lead to much additional
market surveillance effort on ecodesign and energy labelling;
−
highlights the difficulty in establishing performance benchmarks for market
surveillance, even for long-established sectors such as consumer product safety;
−
elaborates on the effectiveness and practical operation of the product registration
database;
−
analyses the option of merging the energy labelling and ecodesign frameworks;
4
SEC(2015) 323
8
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
−
provides more (qualitative) explanation of the modelling results and corrects an error
in the impacts in terms of jobs for the different label layouts;
−
elaborates in more detail the monitoring arrangements for future evaluation.
3.3.
3.3.1.
Use of Expertise and Consultation of interested parties
External expertise
Two studies were specifically commissioned to prepare the review, one general evaluation
study (further referred to as the 'evaluation study') and one specific study focussing on
consumer understanding and behaviour related to different types of energy labels (further
referred to as the 'consumer behaviour study'). In addition, an impact assessment study
provided specific analysis for the options set out in this impact assessment. Further studies
requested by the Commission during 2011-2014 also provided relevant input. Details are
provided in Annex 1.
3.3.2.
Consultation of interested parties
Stakeholders were consulted through the following means:
•
•
•
•
•
Three stakeholder meetings organised by the contractor of the evaluation study.
A public consultation on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ web page.
A stakeholder meeting on selecting the energy label designs to be tested in the
second phase of the 'consumer behaviour study'.
An international conference on products policy.
An Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting.
Further detail on stakeholder consultation can be found in Annex 1.
9
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0010.png
4.
4.1.
R
EVIEW OF THE CURRENT POLICY AND PROBLEM DEFINITION
The problem
Since this impact assessment concerns a review of existing Directives, the problem is
described in two steps in the following sections: firstly the basic problem that created the need
for the Directives, and secondly the problems that have arisen in the course of the application
and implementation of the Directives.
4.1.1.
The basic problem
The basic problem is that products can have a negative impact on the environment depending
on how they are made, used and disposed. As set out in previous impact assessments on
sustainable product policy
5
the most important market failures and imperfections that prevent
the achievement of greater energy and environmental efficiency are:
•
•
•
Prices that do not reflect the negative environmental impacts of the production or
consumption of products;
Difficulties for consumers to tell whether one product is more resource efficient
during its use phase than another;
Higher upfront costs when buying a more performing product, while the benefits
accrue over a longer period of time (i.e. during its use-phase). Consumers may not
take into account the use cost of a product but focus on the initial purchase price
only;
Measures on efficiency of products taken by Member States create barriers to the
free movement of goods in the EU and unnecessary burden for industry to comply
with different sets of rules in each Member State.
The current problem
•
4.1.2.
The above problems have been addressed by the current policy framework through a two-
pronged approach:
•
Banning the least energy and environmentally efficient products from the EU market
through ecodesign requirements for manufacturers, which are EU-harmonised (thus,
Member States cannot set different requirements) ensuring the free movement of
energy-related products and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden for companies.
The aim of the Ecodesign Directive is to address both energy consumption and other
significant environmental impacts of production, use and end-of-life treatment of
energy-related products;
Encouraging consumers to buy more energy efficient products by informing them
about the energy use of products through a mandatory harmonised EU energy label
(see figure 1) provided by manufacturers and displayed by dealers. The aim of the
Energy Labelling Directive is to address specifically energy consumption during the
5
•
SEC(2008)2110 for the 2008 Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial
Policy Action Plan, SEC(2008)2115 for the 2008 proposal for a recast of the Ecodesign Directive and
SEC(2008)2862 for the 2008 proposal for a recast of the Energy Labelling Directive.
10
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0011.png
use phase and, where relevant, other consumption of resources during use of energy-
related products.
The two approaches are complementary, with ecodesign 'pushing' the market and energy
labels 'pulling' it, as illustrated in figure 2. Energy labels are only introduced for products
where an information failure for the user exists, which is not always the case for professional
products. A detailed presentation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directive and their
implementation is provided in Annex 2.
Problems have arisen, in particular:
•
Energy labels have proved successful in encouraging consumers to buy more energy
efficient models and manufacturers have responded by producing ever more energy
efficient products. As a result most products are now in the top classes, which have
become overpopulated, making it more difficult to distinguish between models. Thus,
rescaling may be necessary, in which the required efficiency for each label class is
redefined and a product model that now is in class A++ will be 'rescaled' to e.g. class
B. This has not yet been undertaken for specific products; when this was proposed to
stakeholders for televisions in 2012, this was considered premature without clear
provisions for this in the Energy Labelling Directive. Moreover, the "A+", "A++" and
"A+++" classes introduced during the previous revision of the labelling Directive have
shown to be less effective in persuading consumers to buy more efficient products
than the A to G scale.
Non-compliance with ecodesign and labelling requirements, in part related to weak
enforcement by national market surveillance authorities.
Evaluation also revealed further problems, described in section 4.2.3, with the current policy
framework and implementation.
•
Figure 2: The combined effect of ecodesign ('minimum standards') and energy labels
11
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0012.png
4.1.3.
Relationship with other energy efficiency and climate policies
The Energy Labelling Directive and the Ecodesign Directive contribute to the Energy
Efficiency Directive's
6
target (Article 3) to ensure that the Union's 2020 energy consumption
is not more than 1483 mtoe of primary energy or not more than 1086 mtoe of final energy
consumption. The Energy Labelling Directive and the Ecodesign Directive are
complementary to the measures Member States are required to take by the Energy Efficiency
Directive. In order to prevent double counting, it is specified in the Energy Efficiency
Directive that for energy savings obligations of Member States (Article 7), only savings
exceeding those achieved by ecodesign can be counted towards those obligations.
There is no direct relation between the Energy Labelling and the Ecodesign Directives and the
EU's main policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. the Emission Trading
System (ETS)
7
and the Effort Sharing by Member States in the non-ETS sectors
8
. Energy
efficiency policy is a policy in its own right for the objectives of competitiveness, security of
supply and sustainability. Energy efficiency measures are complementary to ETS because
they address non-price barriers such as lack of information, bounded rationality and high
behavioural discount rates. In the case of products, the incentive generated by the ETS could
in theory prompt companies exposed to the ETS price to pressure appliance manufacturers to
reduce this consumption, but in practice this incentive is too indirect, diffuse and
economically insignificant to make a real difference. By contrast, energy labelling provides
consumers with information so that they can make more informed decisions precisely in the
situations where it is relevant, namely when new products are purchased. Ecodesign removes
all products from the market that would be more costly than the product that would have the
least cost during its lifetime (purchase costs plus operating costs), because not all consumers
make "rational" decisions and they discount future cost savings more than what is rational
(and certainly more than what is socio-economically optimal).
By reducing electricity consumption of products, ecodesign and energy labelling have a direct
effect on the demand for electricity, which is part of the ETS sector. Because ecodesign and
energy labelling reduce the demand for electricity, less effort is needed under the ETS. As a
result, the price of allowances is lower than it would otherwise be
9
. However, so far
Commission assessments have not found evidence of this in the current framework, as the
decrease in the prices of allowances was primarily driven by lower economic activity and
other factors. In the future this might change, although the proposed Market Stability Reserve,
by reducing the surplus, would counteract this effect and stabilise the level of emission
allowance prices
10
. In the sectors not covered by ETS, EU action on ecodesign and energy
labelling brings down the cost of national action to achieve greenhouse gas emission saving
targets. Reducing energy use of products cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member
States, because this would lead to divergent national provisions and procedures (while having
similar objectives) that would generate undue costs for industry (and eventually consumers)
and constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU.
6
7
8
9
10
Directive 2012/27/EU
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm
Impact Assessment accompanying Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on Energy Efficiency and its contribution to energy security and the 2030 Framework
for climate and energy policySWD(2014) 255
ibid
12
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0013.png
4.2.
4.2.1.
Evaluation of the current policy framework
Scope of the evaluation
The scope of the evaluation concerns energy-related products and it does not go into the
question of whether energy savings are more or less cost-effectively achieved in other sectors.
The PRIMES reference and policy scenario 2013 show that in order to achieve our
decarbonisation and energy targets, all policy measures are necessary for delivering energy
savings. Further, given that the Ecodesign Directive applies the principle of setting
requirements at the least life cycle cost level (explained further on in this impact assessment)
and given that the Energy Labelling Directive requires that each step on the label corresponds
to significant cost savings to the user, the costs to achieve the energy savings through these
Directives are equal to or less than zero (further detail at the end of section 4.2.2).
The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives are both framework Directives that lay down
the conditions under which requirements can be set for specific energy-related products (such
as washing machines or electric motors) through delegated acts (for energy labelling) and
implementing acts (for ecodesign). The evaluation and this impact assessment focus on the
framework Directives and not on the individual implementing regulations, which are subject
to their own consultation and impact assessment process (see also process chart in Annex 2).
Therefore, the evaluation examined the implementation of the Directives for the product
groups covered by the first Ecodesign Directive (article 16, which contained a list of priority
products) and the two subsequent working plans. Any new products that may in future be
addressed under this framework will be identified in the 2015-2017 Working Plan, which the
Commission plans to adopt as part of the Circular Economy package later in 2015. Any
identified product groups would be subject to preparatory studies that investigate in more
detail the potential for environmental improvement and provide the elements for the
identification of policy options in the subsequent impact assessments.
There are potentially other policy measures than Energy Labelling and Ecodesign that could
increase the efficiency of energy-related products, such as fiscal measures, incentive schemes,
voluntary schemes etc. However, this evaluation focusses on the specific problems that have
arisen in the implementation of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign, such as effectiveness of
energy labels and enforcement. In wider context, energy labelling and ecodesign policies have
shown to work well across the world. The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign policies have been
an example for other jurisdictions outside the EU, thus driving significantly more energy
savings, contributing to a more uniform global playing field and creating opportunities for
European business abroad. The setting of minimum efficiency and labelling requirements is
recognised globally as one of the most effective policy tools in the area of energy efficiency.
A recent study for the Commission
11
shows that out of 59 non-EU countries that have
adopted equipment energy labelling schemes, half of them (53%) have adopted designs that
have fully or partially emulated the EU energy label (including major economies such as
Brazil, China, Korea, Russia and South Africa). At least 45 countries outside the European
Union have adopted minimum energy efficiency requirements for products, some of them in
fact implementing ecodesign regulations in the context of association agreements or EU
membership negotiations. The EU and the US are the world leaders in the development of
minimum energy efficiency requirements and energy labelling.
11
Ecofys, Impacts of the EU’s Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre labelling legislation on third jurisdictions, 30
April 2014
13
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0014.png
4.2.2.
Achievements of the legislative framework
To date 24 ecodesign implementing regulations have been put in place, some of which have
been subsequently updated through amendment, and two ecodesign voluntary agreements are
in place. Products covered range from household products, such as fridges, lamps and boilers,
to professional and industrial products, such as electric motors and fans. In addition, 12
delegated regulations on energy labelling now ensure that a range of products must be sold
with an EU energy label attached. The effectiveness of the policy is illustrated by the
transformation of the market for fridges and washing machines shown in figure 3a and 3b.
Figure 3a: Transformation of the EU Market for refrigerators
14
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0015.png
Figure 3b: Transformation of the EU Market for washing machines
It is possible that the energy efficiency improvement is in part due to other factors such as
ongoing market trends independently of the policy. No ex-post counterfactual data is available
to assess this, because it is difficult to quantitatively assess what would have happened in the
absence of the policy. In any case, energy efficiency improvements do not necessarily occur
spontaneously. On the contrary, for example in the case of vacuum cleaners, a product that
was until recently not regulated by ecodesign or energy labelling, energy use per product was,
in absence of regulation, increasing rather than decreasing, with no parallel improvement in
functionality
12
. By contrast, the various consumer studies show a high impact of the energy
label on consumer choice
13
. In addition, the sheer existence of the energy label for a product
group triggers a competition towards more energy efficiency among the manufacturers
14
.
Therefore, at least a significant part of the observed energy efficiency improvement can be
attributed to the Directives.
Based on modelling, in which energy use developments in the different sectors affected by
ecodesign and energy labelling until 2010 were corroborated with Eurostat data, the ecodesign
and energy labelling measures in place to date (see Annex 2 for a full list) are estimated to
save 175 mtoe primary energy per year in 2020
15
. This estimate takes into accounts 'rebound'
effects, i.e. behavioural responses to the use of more efficient products (e.g. using them more
12
13
14
15
AEA Energy & Environment, Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs, Lot
17 Vacuum Cleaners, February 2009
See studies referred to on page 12/13 of London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the
energy label – and of potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions,
2014;
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive:
Final Report section 5.1.1.2. "Manufacturer response" p 76
This estimate includes the impact of all the measures adopted until March 2015, and that of measures at
various stages of adoption. It does not include the impact of future measures covering those product
groups where only preparatory studies are on-going or that are considered for the next Working Plan, or
the impact of on-going and future revisions of existing measures.
15
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0016.png
than was previously the case for the less efficient product
16
) and the trend towards ever more
and bigger appliances (computers, displays, etc.) per household. The estimate does not take
into account any non-compliance with the legislation, of which section 4.2.3 indicates
currently to be about 10% of expected energy savings. Taking this into account means that
ecodesign and energy labelling measures contribute to about two fifths of the EU 2020 target
of 20% energy savings by 2020.Energy savings from considering new product groups within
the scope of the Directives show a significantly lower cost-effective energy savings potential
of around 6 mtoe per year in 2030.
Consumers trust the energy label and usually take it into account when they buy appliances
17
.
The label achieves its intended effect in slightly different ways for different types of products.
For appliances such as fridges and washing machines, for which many consumers are aware
that these can significantly affect their household bills, the label provides easily accessible
and standardised information to help consumers take this into account in their choice. For
other types of appliances where many consumers are less aware of the significance on their
household energy bills, such as televisions, the label first of all raises their awareness on this
and then secondly serves in a similar way as for fridges and washing machines. This is
evidenced by the results of the consumer behaviour study
18
which found that the choice
between one and another label design has a greater difference in impact on behaviour when
consumers rank energy efficiency of low importance in their purchasing decision. This
observation was particularly strong in the case of televisions.
The Directives have helped consumers to lower their utility bills
19
, as the least efficient
products are taken off the market through ecodesign and the choice of more efficient products
is facilitated through energy labelling. For example, for fridges the average difference in
energy consumption between A+++ and class B appliances is around 160 kWh per year
representing about €600 over the appliance's lifetime. In total, the ecodesign and energy
labelling measures in place to date are estimated to save end-users of products (household,
commercial and industry) 110 billion euro net (higher acquisition costs counterbalanced by
lower running costs) per year
20
: composed of ca. € 170 billion saving on energy bills and € 60
billion extra acquisition costs. The net savings are€ 100 billion when taking into account
current non-compliance levels. This is equivalent to 465 euros per household per year. By
2030, the net savings achieved by ecodesign and energy labelling measures in the different
sectors will have grown to almost € 300 billion, saving the EU consumers almost 17% on total
costs versus the situation without measures (see Figure 3c).
16
17
18
19
20
Recent academic research found rebound effects between 10 and 30% for a broad range of energy
conservation measures, and a lower estimate for lamps specifically (6%). Miklós Antal, Jeroen C.J.M.
van den Bergh, Re-spending rebound: A macro-level assessment for OECD countries and emerging
economies, Energy Policy 2014; Galvin, R., Estimating broad-brush rebound effects for household
energy consumption in the EU28 countries and Norway: some policy implications of Odyssee data,
Energy Policy 2014; Joachim Schleich
et. al.,
A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in
energy efficient lighting, Energy Policy, 2014.
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive:
Background report I: Literature review, December 2013.
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014
The actual bills may at present not be lower or not as much lower as expected as a result of the policy,
because the cost savings due to energy efficiency are (at least in part) offset by use of more and bigger
appliances and by inceasing energy prices.
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p6
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf
16
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0017.png
Figure 3c: Consumer total expenditure (running costs + acquisition costs) EU 2030 in billion euro with
current ecodesign and energy labelling measures (blue) compared to absence of policy (blue plus pink),
assuming energy price escalation rate of 4%. The graph includes the impact of tyre labelling (transport
sector) which is not the subject of this impact assessment.
21
For environmental aspects other than energy consumption there has been less impact so far,
because most of such ecodesign requirements were introduced more recently and do not yet
apply. The exception is water consumption, which has been addressed by the energy label for
washing machines since 1996, by the energy label for dishwashers since 1999, and by
ecodesign requirement for washing machines since 2011. For both washing machines and
dishwashers the water consumption per cycle more than halved over the last ten years
22
.
These regulations have thus also contributed to the strategy for a resource-efficient Europe
23
.
Apart from environmental and monetary benefits to end-users, the setting of requirements at
EU level also benefits industry. A common and predictable regulatory framework brings
down costs for manufacturers, because rules are harmonised across the EU. It reduces the
commercial and financial risks of innovation
24
and allows European industry to compete with
lower cost countries on higher value added products. The increase in acquisition costs for the
consumers translates into higher business revenue for all market actors (plus taxes). For
measures existing and in the pipeline today, it is calculated that by 2020, the extra revenue
will be € 55 bln, growing to € 75 bln by 2030, compared to a situation without measures.
Some 43% will go to industry, 11-12% to wholesale and 45% to retail, subdivided into 13-
16% to retail and (because there is a large share of installed products) 30-33% to installers.
25
While there is some administrative burden involved for business with the redesign and testing
of the products, as well as the provision of technical documentation and of the energy label,
21
22
23
24
25
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p44
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers,
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014.
COM(2011) 21
in theory; in practice this has been confirmed for some products sectors, but not for some others, see:
Ecofys, Impact of Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre Labelling on R&D and Technological Innovation,, 23
May 2014
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p44
17
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0018.png
these costs are orders of magnitude lower than the additional revenue generated by the higher
acquisition costs of the products.
26
All in all, it can be stated with confidence that the existing measures under the two framework
directives achieve energy savings at financial costs which are negative for all actors involved
(they are gains), or, at most, are zero. The net consumer cost savings of the measures in the
different sectors are illustrated in Figure 3c above. The reason for this is that the Ecodesign
Directive requires the minimum requirements on product energy efficiency to be established
at the level of Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) from the point of view of the end-user, meaning
the level at which the combined purchase and running costs (energy, maintenance, disposal
etc.) of a product are the lowest. Less efficient products would be cheaper to buy, but that
advantage would be outweighed by the higher running costs. More efficient products would
have lower running costs, but the advantage would be outweighed by the higher purchase
cost. Thus the LLCC level achieves the highest cost savings compared to the base case,
meaning the ecodesign measures are cost-savers by definition. The Energy Labelling
Directive requires that each step in the label corresponds to significant cost savings to the
user. As a result, all the classes in the label have to include products whose combined running
and purchase costs are lower than that of the base-case non-efficient product (below the
"break-even point" in Figure 3d), ensuring that energy labelling promotes, also by definition,
products that bring absolute cost savings over the life cycle.
Figure 3d. Typical Life Cycle Cost curve. I = Basecase, II = Least Life Cycle Cost, III = No financial loss
(break even point), IV = Best Available Technology
27
26
For example, the compliance costs for the redesign of the products (which includes testing) covered by
15 ecodesign regulations are estimated at merely 45 million euros / year for the entire industry (see
Annex 9 Measure 8). Other administrative costs (such as producing technical documentation and
providing the label) tend to be much lower than this.
18
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0019.png
4.2.3.
Problems with the current legislation and implementation
The evaluation study identified the following problems with the current framework
28
:
Problems related to Energy Labelling
(1)
'Reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction of A+ and up classes': In
the recast of the Energy Labelling Directive in 2010 three classes (A+++, A++, A+)
were added on top of the existing labelling A (best) - G (worst) scale of the EU
energy label. These new classes have reduced the effect of the label on consumers to
purchase more efficient products. While consumer research shows that the new label
scale is understandable for consumers
29
, it has reduced their willingness to pay more
for more efficient products, because they are less motivated by a difference between
A+ and A+++ than by a difference between C and A.
30
The scale of this problem can be illustrated by the difference in energy consumption
between A+++ and A+ washing machines (with 7 kg load) which is 50 kWh/year
31
.
At sales of more than 15 million washing machines a year
32
, this difference means
after a period of fifteen years more than 11 TWh/year electricity use (1 mtoe primary
energy) for all washing machines bought in that period. Given that washing machines
present only a fraction of the savings of all labelled products, the scale of this
problem is significant. At the same time, the addition of A+ and up classes meant
that the scale remains of a closed type. Thus, a rescaling of the label classes is
necessary when a large share of the market reaches class A+++. Rescaling has not
yet been undertaken, as no agreed method exists
33
and the possibility to add + classes
has so far undermined any compromise for such rescaling.
For several product groups, products populate mainly the highest classes leaving the
lowest classes unpopulated, which is not known to consumers
34
. This is in part
because of the success of the scheme, as manufacturers have responded to the
challenge of producing more energy efficient products, but also because of
incoherence between energy labelling and ecodesign regulations. For a number of
product groups, the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations have in the course of
time become incoherent, because further steps of staged bans by ecodesign were put
into place while energy labels were unchanged. This means that a number of classes
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
From:VHK, Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP) 2011, Methodology Report
Part 1 (Methods), 28 November 2011, page 136.
Ecofys, final technical report p.4
Ecofys, final technical report p.81 and London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the
energy label – and of potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions,
2014
Confirmed also by a recent study finding that the A class is an anchor for consumers’ judgment of
energy efficiency and that an extension with plusses weakens the label, resulting in consumers attaching
less importance to energy efficiency when choosing appliances (Folke Ölander & John Thøgersen,
Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy, J Consum Policy, 8 March 2014)
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers,
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014.
VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers,
Lighting, Set-top Boxes and Pumps, 12 March 2014.
When rescaling was proposed to stakeholders for televisions in 2012, this was considered premature
without clear provisions for this in the Energy Labelling Directive.
Notably for washing machines: 43% of sales in 2014 were of class A+++ (topten.eu, Energy efficiency
of White Goods in Europe: monitoring the market with sales data, 3 June 2015,
http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/WhiteGoods_in_Europe_June15.pdf)
19
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0020.png
shown on the energy label are unpopulated because of ecodesign legislation having
banned products of that efficiency. In the most extreme cases of washing machines,
fridges and dishwashers, the energy label currently displays A+++ to D classes, but
only A+++, A++ and A+ appliances can still be placed on the market.
(2)
'Increase in size of appliances': There is a trend towards larger products in particular
product groups, i.e. refrigerators, washing machines and TV’s. For example, the
average viewable surface area of TV's grew from 10 dm² (19 inches diagonal) in
1990 to 28 dm² (32 inches) in 2010 and is projected to rise to an average 71 dm² (51
inch) in 2030
35
. As a result, overall efficiency improvements for these products may
not result in absolute energy savings. It is unclear if this trend is solely in response to
consumer demand or whether this is in part a development driven by the label since it
is normally easier to make larger appliances more efficient and thus obtain higher
label classes
36
: the rating scale of the label rewards energy efficiency, i.e. energy use
related to a function such as the screen size of a TV. Although the label provides
consumers also with the absolute energy consumption, some consumers do not
understand this
37
and a significant share of consumers thinks the rating scale itself
represents energy consumption, rather than efficiency
38
.
Problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign
(3)
'Long rulemaking processes, leading to outdated technical and preparatory work':
While the entire process from the start of the preparatory study to the publication of
the regulation should be possible within 41 months, until 2012 the average was 49
months. This leads to lost savings as measures enter into force later and are based on
outdated market data. After the preparatory study, the process takes approximately
20 months (see for further detail Annex 2). Thus, even if the 41-month schedule
could be followed, the market data from the preparatory study will be outdated by the
time of the decision on the regulation. The lack of availability and access to recent
market data is a problem for the preparatory study and for the regulatory process if
there is a need to update such data.
Another aspect related to the rule-making process is that the Energy Labelling
Directive lacks a working plan and a formalised stakeholder forum such as the
Consultation Forum under the Ecodesign Directive, although in practice ecodesign
and energy labelling regulations have always been developed together using the
Ecodesign Directive's working plan and stakeholder forum as a basis. So far only in
one case was only an energy labelling regulation developed (for updating all energy
labelling regulations with regard to the display of the label on the internet), for which
the same consultation procedure was applied as for ecodesign.
(4)
'Too low level of ambition for a number of product regulations': The evaluation study
found that while for some product groups ecodesign regulations and labels have
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014, p33
E.g. in Germany 2012 90% of TVs with a screen size of less than 80 cm had class A and B and hardly
any class A+, whereas more than 50% of TVs a screen size of 140 cm or more had class A+; almost all
washing machines of capacity 3-4.5 kg had class A or A+, whereas more than 80% of those with
capacity of 8 kg had class A+++; Okopol, Beyond energy efficiency, May 2014, p.10
Ecofys final technical report p.80
Ecofys, Background report II: Survey results. p.47; Wade and Watson, The New European Energy
Label: Assessing Consumer Comprehension and Effectiveness as a Market Transformation Tool, May
2013, p.92.
35
36
37
38
20
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0021.png
shown the right ambition level, for many other product groups the level of ambition
is too low compared to what is technically and economically feasible (see Annex 10
for details). The evaluation highlighted this is often related to the problem of limited
and outdated data. In addition, also the requirement in the Ecodesign Directive
39
of
aiming to set requirements at the least life cycle cost
40
poses problems. This criterion
assumes that more efficient products have increased investment cost and decreased
cost of operation (namely energy cost). On the basis of product-specific conditions
(taking e.g. into consumer behaviour and durability of the product that determine its
lifetime) the level of the requirement for the least life cycle cost should be
established. However, for e.g. electronic products there is not always a clear
relationship between purchase price and efficiency
41
. In addition the evaluation study
indicates that two existing voluntary agreements have an ambition level that is too
low compared to what is technically and economically feasible.
42
(5)
Non-compliance due to 'weak enforcement': The expert estimate from the evaluation
study is that yearly around 0.6% of the market is surveyed. The indication is that 10-
25% of products on the market are non-compliant with ecodesign requirements
43
.
Some 20% of products are estimated to be offered for sale without the energy labels
displayed and another 15% have the label displayed in an insufficient way (e.g.
wrong placement, retailer made label, label hidden or covered). On the basis of these
figures, the average level of non-compliance with ecodesign and energy labelling
regulation is estimated at 20%.
The share of non-compliance itself does not provide a clear indication of what the scale
of the problem is with regard to loss of envisaged energy savings: some non-compliant
products may be only a little less efficient than required or indicated on the label, while
others may be much less efficient. Based on expert estimates, the evaluation study
indicates that around 10% of envisaged energy savings are being lost due to non-
compliance
44
. In addition to the findings of the evaluation study, further analysis of
market surveillance performance by Member States based on collection of data by
the Commission is provided in Annex 3.
There is a general agreement that the level of market surveillance is too low and
should be increased as it is economically beneficial for society (current investments
in enforcement are estimated to be 0.05% of the value of lost energy savings
45
). Non-
compliance also affects consumers, who may have bought an appliance with a
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
In point 1 of Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive
The life cycle cost is the combined cost of purchasing the appliance and the running cost (energy and
any other resources) over its lifetime. Setting requirements at the least life cycle cost means that the
level of the requirement is set as such that the cheap, inefficient appliances are banned, but not the ones
that are cheapest in life cycle cost.
Hans-Paul Siderius, Setting MEPS for electronic products, Energy Policy 2014.
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. Annex I, p.112-113
Such estimates probably exclude so-called formal non-compliances such as incorrect documentation
delivered with the product. As illustration of different levels of non-compliance, in the Atlete II project
(
http://www.atlete.eu/2/
) out of 50 washing machines, none were found non-compliant with the
ecodesign requirement for energy efficiency, seven were found to be non-compliant with other specific
ecodesign requirements (e.g. water consumption), but as many as 34 were found to be non-compliant
with generic ecodesign requirements such as requirements for the booklet of instructions.
Ecofys, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive:
Background report I: Literature review, December 2013, p.9.
Ecofys final technical report p.159 referring to P. Waide et al., Enforcement of energy efficiency
regulations for energy consuming equipment: findings from a new European study, Proceedings of the
6th International Conference EEDAL'11 Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting
21
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0022.png
different performance than what they were informed of, and the competitiveness of
many manufacturers as it undermines a level playing field. There are a number of
different drivers behind the weak enforcement:
–
–
80% of the respondents to the public consultation think that not enough
resources are given to market surveillance authorities.
The evaluation also highlighted unclear provisions in the legal texts, notably an
overlap of requirements between the Energy Labelling Directive and its
delegated acts
46
, which leads to questions of interpretation and makes analysis
of suspected non-compliance cases more difficult. In addition, there is an
overlap of provisions between the Directives and the market surveillance
regulation
47
. The market surveillance regulation sets out the general
requirements and procedures for Members States to enforce EU-harmonised
product legislation, while product-specific legislation such as the ecodesign
and energy labelling include the requirements for economic operators that
Member States need to enforce. However, the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling
Directives currently also include a number of provisions on procedures for
enforcement. This overlap is less likely to lead to interpretation questions, as
the provisions in the Ecodesign and Energy labelling Directive should take
precedence over those in the market surveillance regulation. Nevertheless,
different procedures for market surveillance for Ecodesign and Energy
Labelling than for safety legislation (even though the products concerned may
be the same ones) sectors creates additional burden for Member States
authorities, making market surveillance less efficient.
A specific obstacle for authorities concerns the timely access to technical
documentation and the ability to contact foreign entities, including the
identification of the manufacturer
48
. More importantly, even in the common
case where the manufacturer is known and contacted, obtaining the technical
documentation for individual products often takes several weeks
49
, even though
the legislation requires that this should be made available within 10 days.
Furthermore, manufacturers use the same energy label and/or ecodesign
declarations for a range of “product family” models ("equivalent models") that
have the same performance
50
, but this information is only available once the
technical information file is received and since it is not available in readily
shareable electronic format market surveillance authorities are often not aware
that other authorities may have already tested an equivalent model. As 10
–
46
47
48
49
50
Article 4, 5 and 6 of the Energy Labeling Directive contain requirements for Member States. These are
effectively requirements for suppliers and dealers and are included as such also in the delegated acts,
though with more precision, but the overlap of requirements leads to questions of interpretation.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, for which the Commission has proposed a revision (COM(2013)75)
Raised by authorities in interviews; cf. Ecofys final technical report, p.162
One Member State indicated that it can take their market surveillance authority sometimes up to 50
days to obtain technical documentation from manufacturers, because of lack of cooperation, even
though the Directives oblige manufactures to supply it within 10 days; see Annex 1. Market
surveillance inspectors also report that technical documentation and/or test reports received are
sometimes dated after the date of their request, whereas manufacturers should have such information
readily available.
As indicated in the Ecopliant (
http://www.ecopliant.eu/
) Establish Best Practice interim report on the
five stages of market surveillance studied: "The model numbers of certain products are inconsistent
across the EU. For instance, the model number of a product in one MS may be different from the model
number of the same product in a different MS."
22
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0023.png
market surveillance authorities (MSAs) indicate in the Ecopliant project "The
different trademarks and different model identification for equivalent products
is often a problem for MSAs controlling the national markets, and this is
especially a barrier for increased coordination of market surveillance activities
across the EU."
51
–
Cooperation between market surveillance authorities is considered limited and
better coordination is a way in which the impact of market surveillance can be
increased without significantly increasing the resources used for enforcement
authorities at national level.
Problem related to (predominantly) Ecodesign
52
(6)
'Other environmental impacts could receive more attention': the evaluation study
found that regulations to date have mainly addressed the use-phase energy
consumption, as this represents the most important contribution to the environmental
impacts of the energy-related products. There is potential for reduction of other
environmental impacts of energy-related products, e.g. through increased durability.
The evaluation study indicates that for properly including non-energy aspects
modifications to the MEErP
53
methodology used for preparatory studies would be
necessary
54
. To address other environmental impacts of products more widely, an
extension of the scope of the Directives to product groups other than energy-related
products would be necessary, since for other types of products, environmental
impacts other than use-phase energy usually dominate. However, the environmental
impacts of products other than energy-related products is a wider problem than the
Ecodesign Directive and there may be other ways to address it than to extend the
scope of the Directive. Therefore, the assessment of measures related to the
Ecodesign Directive to address this problem should take into account other policy
instruments that can address the underlying problem for these products.
Thus, the following six problems are identified, along with their underlying drivers:
(1)
Reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction of A+ and up classes
–
(2)
Label layout laid down in recast Energy Labelling Directive
Increase in size of appliances
–
–
–
Consumer demand for bigger products
55
A share of consumers interpret the label rating as absolute consumption
Easier for larger appliances to be made more efficient and achieve higher label classes
51
52
53
54
55
Best Practice Guidelines, Ecopliant European Ecodesign Compliance Project (draft 19 December 2013)
While the Energy Labelling Directive could be changed to address this problem, it can be argued that it
was never meant to address this given the clear focus of the scope on the energy in the use-phase.
Methodology
for
the
Ecodesign
of
Energy-related
Products:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/methodology/index_en.htm
Ecofys final technical report p.5, although on p.32 it adds that on-going studies aim to address this.
This driver is not further assessed in this impact assessment, because it is a driver external to the policy
area concerned.
23
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0024.png
(3)
Long rulemaking processes
–
–
Proper consultation, consideration and assessment requires time
56
Limited and outdated data
(4)
Too low level of ambition for a number of product measures
–
–
–
Limited and outdated data
Least life cycle cost criterion is poor guidance
The criteria for requirements of self-regulation are not sufficiently detailed
57
(5)
Weak enforcement
–
–
–
–
Insufficient national resources made available
Overlap of legal provisions
Difficult access to technical documentation
Insufficient cross-border cooperation
(6)
Little reduction of non-energy environmental impacts
–
–
MEErP does not sufficiently capture some impacts
Scope of the Directives excludes non-energy related products
58
These six problems diminish the ability of the legislation to reduce negative impacts of
products on the environment. They lead to a loss of potential energy savings, unnecessary
extra cost for consumers, not satisfactorily informing them, and low savings impact on
environmental issues other than energy. The problems identified include the problems that
were not fully addressed by the non-legislative actions initiated after the 2012 review of the
Ecodesign Directive
59
.
4.3.
The baseline: How will the problem evolve?
The purpose of the baseline is to identify what would happen in the absence of new policy.
The baseline is quantified so that the analysis of the policy options formulated and analysed in
the next chapters can be compared to it. The quantification of the baseline is done on the basis
of the 'ecodesign impact accounting' model, of which further detail is provided in Annex 5.
56
57
58
59
This driver is not further assessed in this impact assessment, because it relates to general procedures not
specific to this policy area.
Annex VIII of the Ecodesign Directive contains indicative criteria that may be used to evaluate the
admissibility of voluntary agreements as alternative to implementing meaures. On level of ambition, the
criteria only indicate that there must be aaded value compared to business as usual, However, this driver
is not further assessed in this impact assessment, because the Commission is in the process of
developing guidelines for voluntary agreements, on which the Ecodesign Consultation Forum was
consulted on 12 June 2014. These guidelines aim to cover, inter alia, the ambition level of voluntary
agreements by specifying a minimum level of market share to be covered by such agreements.
The driver in the context of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling. There may be other drivers in the context
(or absence) of other policy instruments.
Further detail on the 2012 review of the Ecodesign Directive is in Annex 4.
24
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0025.png
In the absence of any changes to the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives and any
changes to the way they are implemented, there will continue to be further energy and other
environmental savings. First and foremost because the existing ecodesign and energy
labelling product regulations will continue to have effect: more stringent requirements already
laid down in the ecodesign regulations will start apply at their scheduled dates and the product
labels for categories of products that are not yet populating the highest label classes will drive
industry to make more efficient products. Secondly, since the Directives would stay in place
as they are, also new ecodesign and energy labelling product regulations for new product
categories would still be developed (if product categories could deliver significant savings)
and existing product ecodesign and energy labelling product regulations would be reviewed
and updated if there are significant potential further savings in energy and other
environmental impacts.
However, in absence of any changes non-compliance will remain a problem and is expected
to remain at the same level (see Annex 3). The new regulation on market surveillance
proposed by the Commission is likely to improve the framework for market surveillance. A
key aspect of the proposal is that it removes overlaps of enforcement provisions between the
market surveillance regulation, the general product safety legislation and the sector-specific
product legislation. However, it does not remove the overlap for ecodesign and energy
labelling, because the general product safety legislation is not applicable to ecodesign and
energy labelling and it was considered not appropriate at the time of the market surveillance
regulation proposal to amend the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling, since they were
undergoing their own review and stakeholder consultation. Therefore, by itself the new
regulation on market surveillance is unlikely to lead to additional market surveillance effort
on ecodesign and energy labelling by Member States, and it is assumed in the baseline that
there is no improvement with regard to energy savings being lost due to non-compliance. This
non-compliance not only affects the potential energy and environmental savings targeted by
the policy, but, at least where it concerns labelled products, would also undermine consumer
confidence in the energy label: the more reports are published on non-compliance, the less
consumers will trust the EU energy label.
Further, the energy label will be running into its limits: the labelling scheme will lose its
impact once all or most models correspond to the A+++ rating. The current approach of
introducing an A-G label for a newly regulated appliance and then adding A+ and up classes
to allow for technological progress would continue to apply. However, once the A+++ to D
label would be in place for a specific product no further revision of the delegated act would be
undertaken, because this requires rescaling, which has been rejected for the A+++ to D label
when this was proposed for televisions.
60
Thus, the energy labels were a large share of models
would be in the highest classes would lose their meaning and effect on consumers
61
.
There may also be other missed potential in the absence of any changes to the Ecodesign and
Energy Labelling Directives or the way they are implemented. As pointed out, the evaluation
study indicated that higher ambition levels on energy efficiency are possible, which are not
achieved in the current implementation. The same applies to non-energy environmental
impacts of energy-related products. Further, other types of products will remain outside the
scope of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives.
60
61
Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting on Televisions (Lot 5) and Displays (Lot 3), 8
October 2012
This will soon be the cases for washing machines, for which in January and February 2013 44% of sales
were of class A+++ or A++ (VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study).
25
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0026.png
Figure 4 shows the resulting baseline trend in energy consumption of energy-related products
in absence of any changes in the policy or its implementation, taking into account non-
compliances and the limitations of the energy label. Detail on the development for specific
product sectors as well as on consumer expenditure
62
trends is provided in Annex 6.
Figure 4 also provides a comparison with what would have happened in absence of energy
efficiency legislation for products. This is to illustrate the significant energy savings gained
from regulating energy efficiency of products, even if there is also an autonomous trend to
improve energy efficiency for most types of energy-related products in absence of policy (not
depicted, but taken into account in the 'ecodesign impact accounting' model)
63
.
Energy of Entire Installed Stock (TWh/a)
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
1990
No ecodesign/energy labelling
policy
Baseline
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure 4: Energy use of all energy-related products for the baseline compared to no ecodesign and energy
labelling policy
4.4.
Who is affected and how?
Consumers are affected, because the policies should lower their utility bills and the overall
life cycle cost of buying and using appliances. The energy label provides them with objective
information on use of energy and other resources.
Retailers
64
are affected, because they have to ensure proper display of the label. In addition,
the shift towards more efficient appliances which usually have higher costs means higher
turn-over and likely also higher profits. The affected retailers include micro-enterprises
65
,
which should be subject to the same rules as energy labels are only useful for consumers if all
products are labelled in all retail outlets.
62
63
64
65
The expenditure is the combined expenditure of purchase of products, energy costs during usage, and
for some products, water costs during usage and/or installation and maintenance costs.
This illustration does not consider or address the issue whether regulating products should be addressed
at Member State or EU level, which is addressed in section 4.5.
Including installers e.g. for products such as heaters
For definition of micro-enterprises see
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-
analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm
26
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0027.png
Manufacturers, both in the EU and those exporting to the EU are affected, because they have
to take the requirements of the regulations into account when designing new products.
Further, the label presents them with opportunity to compete on a second objective factor,
energy efficiency, in addition to price. The affected manufacturers would include any micro-
enterprises for the same reason as given for retailers and to ensure fair competition in the
single market where it concerns ecodesign requirements. The sectors concerned include few
or no micro-enterprises manufacturers.
Society at large is affected, because of the environmental benefits of the policy.
Member States are affected, because they have to ensure compliance through market
surveillance and inform consumers about the label
66
.
Third countries are affected, because the A-G energy labelling scheme has been followed as a
model in many different countries around the world and some countries have also
implemented EU ecodesign regulations
67
. They are also affected through the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade which is to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and
certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles, while also providing the right to
implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives.
Standardisation organisations are affected, because they need to develop the detailed testing
and measurement methods.
4.5.
Justification of EU action
The Energy Labelling Directive is based on Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, which provides a legal base for measures to promote energy efficiency.
The Ecodesign Directive is based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, the legal base for measures for the functioning of the internal market.
The objective of reducing negative environmental impacts of products, in particular energy
use, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, because this would lead to
divergent national provisions and procedures (while having similar objectives) that would
generate undue costs for industry (and eventually consumers) and constitute obstacles to the
free movement of goods within the EU. Only through harmonised EU rules on energy
labelling and underlying measurements and testing can it be ensured that the same model of a
product has the same published energy class throughout the EU.
In the absence of EU legislation, it is likely that all Member States would introduce energy
efficiency legislation for some product groups, because of consumer protection and because it
is difficult to achieve the target of the Energy Efficiency Directive without addressing the
energy use of products. Acting at the EU level is the only way to ensure that requirements and
labels for products placed on the market are equal in all Member States, thereby ensuring the
functioning of the Internal Market underpinned by Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union. The principle of proportionality is examined in section 8.
66
67
This includes the EEA EFTA states Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland who implement this EU policy
as well as Turkey through the Customs Union, and the countries of the Energy Community where it
concerns energy labelling.
Ecofys, Impacts of the EU’s Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre labelling legislation on third jurisdictions.
27
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0028.png
5.
O
BJECTIVES
The general objective of the Treaty that the policy aims of the Energy Labelling and
Ecodesign Directives contribute to is to ensure the functioning of the internal market through
the free movement of goods that ensure a high level of environmental and consumer
protection.
The specific objective of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives is to reduce energy
consumption and other significant environmental impacts of products by ensuring consumers
are informed in a relevant and easy-to-understand way and allowing industry to transform
environmental challenges into economic opportunities.
The evaluation found that the objectives remain relevant and that increasing energy efficiency
has in fact gained in relevance. Therefore, the operational objectives for the present review of
Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives are directly derived from the above objectives and
are to update the policy framework so that it continues to ensure the functioning of the
internal market, a high reduction of energy consumption and other environmental impacts of
products. In addition, in light of the problems identified further specifically objectives of this
review are to ensure that an update of the policy framework is relevant, useful and easy-to-
understand for consumers and can be enforced easily and appropriately. Further specific
objectives reinforced by the Commission's drive for better regulation are to ensure that the
policy is simple, apt for purpose and robust to future developments and cost-effective. Finally,
in addition to the specific objectives a criterion for the assessment should be that the policy
framework should remain in line with international obligations. The extent of achievement of
reduction of energy consumption will be measured quantitatively, while other objectives can
be assessed only qualitatively.
28
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0029.png
6.
6.1.
P
OLICY OPTIONS
Measures to address the problems
Reaching the objectives identified in Chapter 5 necessitates solutions to the outstanding
problems and underlying drivers defined in section 4.2. On the basis of the evaluation study
and consultation, a number of actions was identified which are referred to as measures. These
measures are described below and in section 6.2 they are bundled in different ways to form
policy options. These measures work equally well for all product groups, except where
explicitly stated differently (provision of monetary information). Product-specific features
(e.g. economic lifetime
68
) are not different between the baseline and the measures with a few
exceptions as described in Annex 5.
6.1.1.
Measures to address problems related to Energy Labelling
For the problem of
'reduced effectiveness of labels following the introduction of A+ and up
classes'
the measure identified is to change the label scale layout. There are alternative layouts
possible. A specific study tested the consumer understanding and the effect on their purchase
decisions of a number of potential basic frames that could be used for a new energy label
69
.
On the basis of the results of this first phase of the study, potential future label scale designs
were drawn up for further analysis. Stakeholders were consulted on the draft label designs and
rejected the label design adding further + classes (for example A++++), requesting that it
should not be among the label designs among to be tested on consumers in the second phase
of the study
70
. Further information on the study and stakeholder consultation is in Annex 1.
Measure 1A: Alphabetic A-G label
The Energy Labelling Directive would be amended so that an A-G label would be applied for
products without ever adding any + classes. In order to keep promoting further efficiency
improvements, this requires periodic rescaling in which the class-requirements would be
made more stringent and a product model that is in class B will be 'rescaled' to e.g. class E. A
vast majority of respondents supported this option. However, manufacturers and retailers
(both interest groups and individual companies) did not hold a uniform view on the issue,
their answers ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
71
The periodic rescaling means that there may be a transition period in which old (from before
the scaling) and new labels (rescaled) would be present. Having an overlap in the market
between old ‘A’ and new ‘A’ was seen as undesirable by respondents to the public
consultation, in particular by industry and consumer interest groups
72
. An overlap is likely to
confuse consumers and lead to sales of less efficient appliances than otherwise, although it is
impossible to quantify by how much. The solution is to shorten any overlap period, but that
means a different approach in supplying and affixing labels is needed than the present one (at
68
69
70
71
72
Economic lifetime includes consumer behaviour aspects such as replacing a product before the end of
its technical lifetime
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. First phase of the study
Cf. minutes of the stakeholder meeting on 19 February 2014, in Annex 2. Stakeholders also rejected this
during the consultation, most of them strongly, cf. Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results.
p.52 and Annex I, p.37
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.52
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.52
29
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0030.png
present from a certain date manufactures put a label in the box they ship to dealers; dealers
affix the label supplied by manufactures; the label remains on the shop floor as long the
specific appliance to which it is attached is not sold). Further detail on the transition period is
provided in Annex 8. Periodic rescaling would take place every 5-10 years.
Figure 5 : A-G label (left), numeric label (middle) and reverse numeric label (right)
Measure 1B: Numeric label
The Energy Labelling Directive would be amended so that a numeric label (see figure 5)
would be applied for all products. The classes in the initial label would be indicated by
numbers ranging from zero on top to e.g. 100 at the bottom, the lower number the better the
energy efficiency. At the introduction of the label the top classes would be indicated in grey
and be unused so that the label allows room for technological improvement. The level of the
zero class should be at or close to the theoretical best possible efficiency. In the case of
technological improvement some or all of the grey classes would be made available and a
number of classes at the bottom of the label would be removed; the colour scale would thus
move up in the label. The normal transition phase after such an update of the label would be
less confusing for consumers as each product remains in its existing class (although the
assigned colour and the class position in the colour scale do change). Thus, no special
transition period as in measure 1A is necessary. Stakeholders from industry and
environmental NGOs suggested further exploring this option.
73
In the public consultation
stakeholders tended to disagree with moving to an open ended scale on the label such as in
73
Arditi, Meli & Toulouse, Revising EU energy label: evolution or revolution?, ECEEE summer study
proceedings 2013
30
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0031.png
this option, except for respondents from industry interest groups who were more positive
about it.
74
Measure 1C: Reverse numeric label
The Energy Labelling Directive would be amended so that a reverse numeric label (see figure
5) would be applied for all products. The classes in the label would be indicated by numbers
ranging initially from seven on top to one at the bottom, the higher number the better the
energy efficiency. In the case of technological improvement additional classes 8, 9, etc. would
be added on top and an equivalent number of classes at the bottom of the label would be
removed; the colour scale would remain to show its seven colours, with dark green for the
(new) best class. The normal transition phase after such update of the label would be less
confusing for consumers as each product remains in its existing class (although the assigned
colour and the class position in the colour scale do change). Thus, no special transition period
as in measure 1A is necessary. In the public consultation, most respondents across all groups
disagreed to some extent with this option
75
. However, in the consultation meeting of 19
February 2014 several stakeholders indicated this was an interesting option to explore further.
For the problem of
'Increase in size of appliances'
three possible measures are identified on
the basis of the evaluation study. Measures 2 and 3 presented below are alternatives, both
addressing the feedback from the majority of respondents to the public consultation who
would prefer to focus on both energy efficiency and energy consumption, but with a stronger
focus on energy consumption than at present.
76
Measure 2 attempts to improve the way
absolute energy consumption of appliances is communicated through the label; measure 3 is
more ambitious and uses the current strength of the label design and changes the mechanics
behind it, i.e. which products are assigned to which classes. Measure 4 addresses the problem
by providing extra information in addition to the label and is only useful in combination with
one of the other measures since it has been found to work only for some products types and
not for others, as explained below.
Measure 2: More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label
The label layout would be changed in order to put more emphasis on the indication of the
absolute energy consumption, currently indicated in a box with the indication "XYZ
kWh/annum" (see figure 1 or figure 5). Because of the limited space on the label this measure
would at the same time limit the amount of non-energy information on the label.
Measure 3: Require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class
The Energy Labelling Directive would specify that in the preparation of delegated acts it
should be considered on a product by product basis whether for larger appliances a higher
efficiency (energy use per amount of service, such as the screen size of a TV or the load
capacity of a washing machine) is required to reach certain classes on the label. Although this
approach could already be applied in the current implementation of the Directive, in the
absence of a provision in the Energy Labelling Directive specifically addressing this, only for
one product group has it been possible to agree on such approach
77
.
74
75
76
77
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. Annex I, p.40
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.53
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.42
For lighting products predominantly used in household lighting (providing less than 1300 lumens of
light), the energy label class is determined according to a formula which makes it more difficult for
lamps with more lumens to obtain good classes.
31
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0032.png
Measure 4: Provide monetary information
Dealers would be required to display the cumulative annual running cost of the appliance due
to energy and any other resource consumption either alongside the purchase cost or as part of
the overall life cycle cost for consumers (purchase cost plus cumulative annual running cost).
A standardised methodology to calculate the cumulative annual running cost would be
defined at European level, while the input values for the specific parameters used in it would
be different per Member State. The Commission would arrange a webtool, in which dealers
can enter their geographic location and the specific energy consumption indicated on the label
of the product. The webtool would then provide the dealer with the cumulative annual running
cost. National parameters such electricity prices are available to the Commission and can be
regularly updated. Consumer and environmental interest groups support this measure, while
most manufacturers do not
78
. Trials were done in Norway
79
and the UK
80
. They indicated that
this measure only had effect for appliances with high energy consumption such as washer-
driers and tumble driers. Therefore, this measure would apply only to product groups with
high energy consumption
81
.
6.1.2.
Measures to address problems related to both Energy Labelling and Ecodesign
For the problems of
'Too low level of ambition for a number of product measures', 'Long
rulemaking processes'
and
'Weak enforcement'
two measures have been identified that can
address more than one of these problems at once. The evaluation study recommended
establishing a mandatory product registration database, presented below as measure 5, of
which the data can be used to address all three problems. An alternative is measure 6 which
does not require changes in legislation and also provides data, but it addresses the problems to
a lesser extent and cannot provide the type of data needed to address the problem of weak
enforcement.
Measure 5: Mandatory product registration database
A database would be established at EU level, under the management of the Commission, in
which manufacturers would have to register their models before placing them on the market.
They would need to provide the technical documentation and indicate all equivalent models;
the detail of what should be registered in the database is provided in Annex 7. This measure
would not involve any additional generation by manufacturers of information or
documentation, but only registering in the database information that they are already required
to generate (and provide on request). The Commission and the national market surveillance
authorities would have access to this database. This would allow the national market
surveillance authorities quick access to the technical information necessary for their
inspections. Thus, they could save the time that they are currently spending on contacting
manufacturers for this information, and use it on core enforcement actions, including
checking compliance of dealers with energy labelling. In the context of the revision of the
Directive on harmonisation of requirements for radio equipment, which falls under the same
market surveillance regime as ecodesign and energy labelling, it was estimated that a
78
79
80
81
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.57
http://www.greenudge.no/en/studier/artikkel-under-studier/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350282/John_Lewis_trial_report_010914FINAL.pdf
For the purposes of this impact assessment: tumble driers and water heating equipment. Washer-driers
are a niche product not included in the modeling used for this impact assessment (see Annex 5). For
space heaters, another product group with high energy consumption, the model indicates that overall
life cycle cost do not decrease for more efficient models (further explanation is in section 7.2.2) and
thus providing monetary information would not encourage purchase of more efficient products.
32
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0033.png
registration database could result in an estimated overall gain of up to 10-15% in
time/resources for market surveillance authorities
82
. Based on the experience of such a
database in Australia, which has higher compliance rates for an otherwise similar policy, this
measure is expected to improve compliance rates by 6%-point and reduce energy savings
losses as a result of non-compliance by 3%-point (see Annex 5). The costs are estimated to be
approximately € 3 million investment to establish the database, € 300.000 annual maintenance
costs for the EU budget, and € 3 million per year for manufacturers for the clerical task of
entering the information in the database (they already have the information, see further Annex
9).
Although the database is established at EU level, this measure does not lead to any changes in
the competence of national authorities with regard to market surveillance. The Commission
merely facilitates the establishment and maintenance of the database. If a market surveillance
authority finds a product in a shop that is not registered in the database, that authority can
immediately start a non-compliance case or take the product off the market in case the
manufacturer cannot be contacted. This measure is expected to work well especially in
combination with measure 9 on joint enforcement actions, as the latter is expected to increase
the budget and level of enforcement activities and would allow to undertake joint action to
address a potential situation in which a significant share of product models is not registered in
the database. This measure can also be enhanced by developing a digital application for
consumers to check the product registration database and report any absence of a product to
the market surveillance authorities.
At the same time the product registration database provides the Commission with up to date
information on the energy efficiency and other significant environmental impacts of new
products, which can be used in the rulemaking process to establish the appropriate ambition
level of requirements. Although the database does not include data on sales that preparatory
studies usually include, the most important is the data on the efficiency levels that are
economically feasible and already available for the products on the market. Such data is
particularly important for energy labelling, where in the absence of such data the risk is that
the level of ambition for the top classes is set at a too low level, and as a result energy labels
will have to be revised early and thus frequently. The availability of up to date information
prevents delays in the rulemaking process that are due to a need to procure third party data to
update outdated data. A little more than half of the respondents to the public consultation
supported this measure, consisting mainly of government and surveillance bodies,
environmental interest groups and one quarter of industry interest groups that responded on
this topic
83
.
Similar databases exist in other EU harmonisation legislation (cosmetics
84
, noise
85
and radio
equipment
86
; for other sectors the Commission is also looking into this as part of its e-
Compliance initiative
87
) and in other jurisdictions
88
.
82
83
84
85
SWD(2012) 329
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.76 and 79
Regulation 1223/2009 requires prior to placing on the market the notification to the Commission of the
category and name(s) of the product, contact details of responsible and physical person, country of
placing on the market and country origin in case of import and presence of certain substances and any
potentially necessary medical treatment.
Directive 2000/14/EC requires the collection of noise data for informed consumer choice and for the
assessment of new technological development and the need for further legislative action. The data is
collected through a requirement to send a copy of the EC declaration of conformity to the Commission.
The database is maintained by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/noise-
outdoor-equipment/database/index_en.htm
33
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0034.png
Measure 6: Expand the database study
The existing project in which a contractor, for six product groups, establishes and manages an
energy-related product database
89
with energy and significant other environmental data on
models available on the EU market would be replicated for all products covered by ecodesign
and energy labelling regulations, at present more than 20. Since such data would be collected
from publicly available sources, rather than through systematic information from
manufacturers, it would not be comprehensive and less up to date than the data collected
through a product registration database, but nevertheless of use to address the problem of
ambition levels of measures. Since such study cannot collect the technical information
necessary for inspections (notably test reports that are held by manufacturers), this measure
cannot support market surveillance authorities in improving enforcement.
On the basis of the evaluation study, additional measures have been identified that specifically
address the problem of
'Too low level of ambition for a number of product measures'
The
Ecodesign Directive contains a provision that specifies the level at which requirements should
be set. The application of this provision could be refined or, more ambitiously addressing the
problem, the provision could be changed. These are two alternative measures further
described below.
Measure 7: Use learning curves for least life cycle cost
Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive contains a requirement to aim at setting the level of
ecodesign requirements for energy efficiency at the life cost minimum for end-users. It
requires adapting such level as a result of sensitivity analysis covering relevant factors. Under
this measure in such sensitivity analysis the application of “learning curves”, i.e. the
consideration of decreasing production costs over time, would be included. A majority of
respondents to the public consultation supported this measure, though manufacturers and their
interest groups were divided on it
90
.
Measure 8: Change least life cycle cost requirement
The requirement in Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive to aim setting the ecodesign
requirements for energy efficiency at the life cost minimum for end-users would be changed
into setting the requirements at the break-even point, i.e. the point where the life-cycle costs
of a more efficient product are equal to the life cycle costs of the least efficient product (see
section 4.2.2 for more detail on life cycle cost). Respondents to the public consultation were
divided: government bodies and environmental interest groups supported this measure;
manufacturers are not in favour
91
.
86
87
88
89
90
91
The proposal to revise Directive 1999/5/EC requires, for categories of equipment affected by a low
level of compliance, that prior to their placing on the market, they are registered in a central system
arranged by the Commission and that the allocated registration number is affixed to the product.
The Commission announced in the Communication on “A vision for the internal market for industrial
products” of February 2013 that
"It will [..] launch an initiative on e-Compliance whereby compliance
with Union harmonisation legislation can be demonstrated electronically and in several languages, for
example through e-labelling, digital market surveillance and electronic declarations of conformity in
all official Union languages."
Work on the e-Compliance initiative is on-going and in a less advance
stage than that of this impact assessment.
Including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, South Korea, USA and Vietnam; cf. Ecofys final
technical report, p.184-185
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/tender/doc/2013/tender_specifications_eaci_iee_2013_002.pdf
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.72
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.71-72
34
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0035.png
Further, five additional measures have been identified that specifically address the problem of
'Weak enforcement'.
These measures can complement each other, except that measure 13,
establishing an EU market surveillance authority changes the way market surveillance is
organised for ecodesign and energy labelling to such extent that measures 9 and 10 are not
applicable in such case. The potential measure for the Commission to enact infringement
procedures against Member States that do not carry out sufficient market surveillance activity
is not included. This is because this potential is limited, as it is not obvious how to establish a
benchmark for a sufficient level of market surveillance. The Commission proposed as one of
its 20 actions in its market surveillance action plan
92
to develop key performance benchmarks
for market surveillance, but even for the consumer products safety area where there is more
experience in collecting data on market surveillance it is proving difficult to identify and
agree with Member States relevant enforcement indicators, let alone benchmarks. More than
two years after the adoption of the action plan the action is still on-going without a
foreseeable indication of the outcome. Market surveillance is an area where Member States
are keen to decide themselves how, where and how much effort to invest.
Measure 9: Support joint actions
Joint surveillance and enforcement actions by market surveillance authorities from across the
EU would be supported under the Horizon2020 programme in which the national authorities
would cooperate in joint testing and other cross-border activities. A little more than half of the
respondents to the public consultation consider that the current mechanisms for cooperation in
market surveillance between administrations are not effective and support further cooperation
beyond the Administrative Cooperation (ADCO) meetings and the Intelligent Energy Europe
Ecopliant project
93
. These joint actions could address both non-compliance by suppliers and
by dealers, although because of the cross-border dimension they are more likely to address
supplier obligations.
Measure 10: Align with market surveillance regulation
The Directives would be aligned with the proposal for a new market surveillance regulation
94
,
which aims,
inter alia,
at eliminating overlaps between general legislation on market
surveillance and sector-specific legislation. Article 3(2)-(4) and Article 7 of the Ecodesign
Directive and Article 3(2)-(4) of the Energy Labelling Directive would be deleted and a
specific article on enforcement would be inserted in both Directives stating that Member
States shall ensure that the authorities responsible for market surveillance verify compliance
according to the market surveillance regulation. Since the present overlaps concern
enforcement of supplier and dealer obligations, such a measure could address non-compliance
by both actors. Respondents to the public consultation indicated that it is necessary that the
market surveillance regulation applies fully to ecodesign and energy labelling and double
requirements should be avoided
95
.
Measure 11: Streamline legal provisions
The requirements for suppliers and dealers in the Energy Labelling Directive would be less
detailed in order to avoid overlap and/or contradiction with the delegated acts and the
requirements for drafting delegated acts would explicitly specify that the necessary details
have to be included in delegated regulations. In addition, the Directive would be changed to a
92
93
94
95
COM(2013)76
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.78-79
COM(2013) 75 final
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.78
35
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0036.png
Regulation, because transposition creates still a risk for further overlap and/or contradiction
between the general framework and its delegated regulations
96
. Removing and preventing
such overlaps and contradictions improves enforcement, because it allows to pursue certain
non-compliance cases that otherwise would not be considered worth pursuing due to legal
uncertainty
97
. The present overlaps in energy labelling provisions concern requirements for
both suppliers and dealers and therefore this measure can address non-compliances by both
actors. The instrument of a regulation seems in any case the better instrument since the main
element of the policy that requires detailed implementation by Member States is enforcement
of the delegated acts, for which requirements are detailed in those delegated acts and in the
market surveillance regulation. In options that require revision of the Ecodesign Directive,
also that Directive would be revised into a Regulation for the same reasons. Stakeholders
pointed out unclear formulations in legal texts, notably the format of information to be
provided to consumers and authorities
98
.
Measure 12: Third party certification
The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives would be amended so that for all products
covered, a third party has to certify the compliance before a model is placed on the market (at
present self-certification applies and third party certification is only an option in the
Ecodesign Directive for products where it is duly justified and proportionate to the risk
99
).
This would only address non-compliance of suppliers, not for dealers. Not many stakeholders
supported this option in the public consultation. In particular the heating industry supported
it
100
.
Measure 13: EU market surveillance authority
Instead of market surveillance by the Member States, it would be undertaken by an EU
authority, to be newly set up. This measure was already analysed in the impact assessment for
the product safety and market surveillance package
101
, but not selected, because would entail
significant costs due to the need for the establishment of coordination infrastructures and
capacity, which currently do not exist at EU level. Moreover, in the current impact assessment
this option includes expanding the scope of the Directives to all products (measure 14), which
would likely lead to product-specific requirements that cannot be tested on the product in a
laboratory, but instead requires paper trail evidence throughout the life-cycle of the product.
This requires in any case new capacities to be developed. Therefore, the consideration to do
this through an EU authority merits specific consideration in this context. A little more than
96
97
98
99
100
101
The change to a Regulation is possible, because the main requirements of the Energy Labelling
Directive (and the Ecodesign Directive) are on suppliers and dealers and even those are in fact set out in
the necessary detail in the delegated (implementing in the case of ecodesign) acts. The main
requirement for Member States concerns enforcement. The provisions for such enforcement are,
however, set out in the market surveillance regulation. In the transposition of the Energy Labelling
Directive in 2010-2011 most Member States simply copied the provision one-to-one in their national
legislation.
An authority may find that a non-compliance is significant from the consumer and energy savings point
of view, but nevertheless not pursue the case if there is some ambiguity in the legal framework and thus
a significant chance that a Court would not uphold its non-compliance decision.
Ecofys final technical report, p.161
At present third party certification only applies for ecodesign of boilers, for which such requirements
were also in Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-
water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels.
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results, p.80
SWD(2013)33 final; option 3D
36
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0037.png
half of the respondents to the public consultation across interest groups supported this
measure specifically for ecodesign and energy labelling
102
.
6.1.3.
Measures to address problems related to (predominantly) Ecodesign
For the problem of
'Little reduction of non-energy environmental impacts'
two alternative
measures are identified. Measure 14 was recommended by the evaluation study, whereas the
alternative, measure 15, is much more ambitious and also explored by the evaluation study.
Measure 14: The impact categories, the characterisation factors, the inventory database and
the assumptions in the modelling of the Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-related
Products (MEErP)
103
and its Ecoreport tool would be reviewed and were necessary updated to
better fit the analysis of material impacts.
Measure 15: The scope of both Directives would be extended to include further products
beyond energy-related products. About one fifth of respondents to the public consultation
supported this measure for Energy Labelling, while about two-thirds opposed it. For the
Ecodesign Directive there was somewhat more support: one third of respondents supported it,
while a little over half opposed it.
104
The European Parliament has called on the Commission
to propose such a scope extension for the Ecodesign Directive.
105
In addition, the scope of the
Energy Labelling Directive would be extended beyond the use phase to display life-cycle
impacts on the label since the use phase of non-energy related products is usually the least
important in terms of energy consumption. In the public consultation, government bodies and
environmental interest groups favoured such additional information. Manufacturers, retailers
and consumer interest groups did not support this
106
. Rather than extending the scope of the
Directives, there may be other policy instruments than Ecodesign and Energy Labelling that
can address the underlying problem for these products. This will be taken into account in the
assessment of the impacts.
102
103
104
105
106
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.76
Methodology
for
the
Ecodesign
of
Energy-related
Products:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/methodology/index_en.htm
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.28-31
P7_TA(2012)0223
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.57
37
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0038.png
The graph below provides an overview of how each of the measures described above links to
the problem drivers.
Problems
Reduced effectiveness
of labels following the
introduction of A+
and up classes
Drivers for which measures
are identified
Label layout laid down in
recast Energy Labelling
Directive
Measures
1. Change the label scale
layout
2. More emphasis on absolute
energy consumption on the
label
3. Require for larger appliances
a higher efficiency to reach a
certain label class
4. Provide monetary
information
5. Mandatory product
registration database
6. Expand the database study
A share of consumers interpret
the label rating as absolute
consumption
Increase in size of
appliances
Easier for larger appliances to
be made more efficient and
achieve higher label classes
Long rulemaking
processes
Limited and outdated data
Too low level of
ambition for a number
of product measures
Least life cycle cost criterion is
poor guidance
7. Use learning curves for least
life cycle cost
8. Change least life cycle cost
requirement
9. Support joint actions
10. Align with market
surveillance regulation
11. Streamline legal provisions
12. Third party certification
Insufficient national resources
made available
Overlap of legal provisions
Weak enforcement
Difficult access to technical
documentation
Insufficient cross-border
cooperation
13. EU market surveillance
authority
14. Review MEErP
15. Extension of the scope to
product groups other than
energy-related products
Little reduction of
non-energy
environmental
impacts
MEErP does not sufficiently
capture some impacts
Scope of the Directives
excludes non-energy-related
products
38
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0039.png
6.2.
Policy options
Policy options were constructed combining different sets of measures. The policy options
represent different degrees of change to the existing policy framework and ambition levels to
address the problems. One option would not require changes to the existing legal framework
and three others requiring changes to the legal framework in different degrees. In addition, the
options changing the legal framework contain a suboption of merging the two legal
frameworks into one instrument, which could address identified incoherencies between
ecodesign and energy labelling. Box 1 gives an overview of the options, which are described
in detail further below.
Box 1: Overview of the policy options
Option 0: No change ("baseline option")
Option 1:
Improvements within the existing regulatory framework
Option 1+:
Option 1 combined with some improvements in the legal framework, notably for
energy labelling
Option 2:
Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling
Option 3:
Comprehensive reform of ecodesign and energy labelling extending the scope to
non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance
Suboption to option 1+, 2 and 3: merge ecodesign and energy labelling into one legal
instrument
The possibility to repeal one or both Directives and their implementing/delegated acts was
discarded, because it would not solve the basic problem. In addition it would not be consistent
with policy objectives and the target of the Energy Efficiency Directive, which is unlikely to
be achievable without legislation on energy efficiency of products. In the absence of EU
legislation, Member States would regulate leading to divergent national provisions and
procedures, and thus undue costs for industry (and consumers) and obstacles to the free
movement of goods within the EU. The vast majority of respondents to the public
consultation, in particular consumers, agreed that minimum energy performance standards for
products are necessary. An overwhelming majority of respondents to the public consultation
across all groups strongly disagreed with the option of abolishing the label
107
. Member States
rejected the possibility to stop working on ecodesign and energy labelling when in the Energy
Council in June 2014 the Commission raised this question in light of the criticism during the
European Parliament election campaign.
6.2.1.
Option 0: no changes, baseline
This option does not address the problems, but represents the baseline, as set out in section
4.3, with which other options can be compared. There is not much support from stakeholders
for this option: the vast majority of stakeholders think that the Energy Labelling Directive
needs to be changed and a large majority of respondents to the public consultation across all
types of respondents agreed that A+++-D class is more difficult to understand than the
previously used A-G scale.
107
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.9 and 53
39
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0040.png
6.2.2.
Option 1: Improvements within the existing regulatory framework
Since for almost all problems there is one measure identified that could address the problem,
at least in part, without making changes to the existing legal framework, this option was
identified and constructed of those measures that require no changes to the Energy Labelling
Directive or the Ecodesign Directive. The only problem this option cannot address is the one
of reduced effectiveness of labels, which requires changes to the Energy Labelling Directive.
Problem category
Reduced effectiveness of labels
Increase in size of appliances
Long rulemaking processes
Too low level of ambition of measures
7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost
Weak enforcement
Non-energy environmental impacts
9. Support joint actions
14. Review MEErP
Measure(s) addressing it
none
2. More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label
6. Expand the database study (ecodesign and energy labelling)
6. Expand the database study (ecodesign and energy labelling)
6.2.3.
Option 1+: Option 1 combined with some improvements in the legal framework,
notably for energy labelling
This option was identified to address the problem of reduced effectiveness of labels, the only
one that cannot be addressed by option 1. Since the measure addressing this problem requires
changes to the Energy Labelling Directives, a number of other measures that require changes
to the Energy Labelling Directive and that are expected to further or better address the
problems compared to the measures in option 1 were also included in this option. For the
problem of 'increase in size of appliances' the non-legal measure of putting more emphasis on
absolute energy consumption on the label was left out as the alternative measure of requiring
for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class is expected to address
this problem better, because it uses the strength of the label (the green-to-red colour scale) to
address the problem. The additional emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label
has a risk of diluting the effect of that very strength.
In this option the product registration database would only apply to products covered by
energy labelling. For these products, the problem of weak enforcement that the registration
database addresses is more prevalent. Energy labels cover consumer products for which the
number of equivalent models is larger: in the consumer products sector there are "no-brand"
manufacturers producing for third companies, which then put their own brand on the product
and are responsible for placing it on the market. The "no-brand" manufacturer can supply the
same ("equivalent") product to different suppliers who market it under their own brand.
Further, models of different colours are usually also equivalent and more common for
domestic appliances. Since the product registration database is included for labelled products
in this option, the alternative measure (no 6) would only apply to products covered only by
ecodesign.
40
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0041.png
This option includes one change to the Ecodesign Directive, i.e. aligning it with the proposal
for the market surveillance regulation, which implies deleting several clauses from the
Ecodesign Directive as they are already addressed by the proposal for the market surveillance
regulation. Aligning only energy labelling and not ecodesign is not desirable, since market
surveillance activities often address both at the same time.
Problem category
Reduced effectiveness of labels
Measure(s) addressing it
1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B)
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label
3. Require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a
certain label class
4. Provide monetary information
5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only)
Long rulemaking processes
6. Expand the database study (ecodesign only)
5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only)
Too low level of ambition of measures
7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost
5. Mandatory product registration database (labelling only)
9. Support joint actions
Weak enforcement
10. Align with market surveillance regulation
11. Streamline legal provisions
Non-energy environmental impacts
14. Review MEErP
Increase in size of appliances
6.2.4.
Option 2: Significant reform of both ecodesign and energy labelling
This option was identified aiming to address all problems in an ambitious way without a
complete overhaul of the legislative framework such as would be caused e.g. by changes to
the scope of the Directives or to the competences on market surveillance. Thus, this option
includes the most ambitious measures, except for measures 8 (change least life cycle cost
requirement), 13 (EU market surveillance authority) and 15 (extension of scope to non-energy
related products).
Measure 8 of changing the least life cycle cost requirement to a break-even point requirement
is not included in this option, because it is a radical change, as it will remove from the market
products that are the least cost options with expected negative effects for in particular
vulnerable consumers. It will also likely raises the ambition level for ecodesign to such extent
that energy labels may not be useful anymore: if the requirement banning products from the
market is set a high level, the differentiation in energy efficiency of the remaining products on
the market is likely too small, which, given margins of error in testing products, does not
allow to distinguish that differentiation through a label with classes (see section 4.2.2. for
more details on life cycle cost).
41
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0042.png
In this option the product registration database would apply both to products covered by
energy labelling and those covered only by ecodesign
108
.
Problem category
Reduced effectiveness of labels
Measure(s) addressing it
1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B)
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label
3. Require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a
certain label class
4. Provide monetary information
Long rulemaking processes
Too low level of ambition of measures
7. Use learning curves for least life cycle cost
5. Mandatory product registration database
9. Support joint actions
Weak enforcement
10. Align with market surveillance regulation
11. Streamline legal provisions
12. Third party certification
Non-energy environmental impacts
14. Review MEErP
5. Mandatory product registration database
5. Mandatory product registration database
Increase in size of appliances
6.2.5.
Option 3: Comprehensive reform of ecodesign and energy labelling extending the
scope to non-energy related products and to centralise market surveillance
This option was identified aiming to address other environmental impacts than energy use in a
comprehensive way. Under this option the framework Directives (which would be changed to
Regulations) would be revised to extend their scope to product groups other than energy-
related products, and for Energy Labelling (as already is the case for Ecodesign) to all life
cycle phases and all environmental impacts. The product-specific requirements that would
follow from such scope extension would be such that, for certain products and certain
environmental impacts, they cannot be tested on the product in a laboratory, but instead
require chain of custody evidence throughout the life-cycle. This requires a different approach
to market surveillance than currently undertaken by the Member States under EU product
harmonisation legislation. Therefore, this option includes centralising market surveillance at
the EU level.
108
This measure is presented as being implemented through revision of the Ecodesign Directive, though it
may also be possible to implement it through a stand-alone regulation.
42
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0043.png
Problem category
Reduced effectiveness of labels
Measure(s) addressing it
1. Change the label scale layout to A) Alphabetic A-G label; B)
Numeric label; or C) Reverse numeric label
3. Require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a
certain label class
4. Provide monetary information
Increase in size of appliances
Long rulemaking processes
Too low level of ambition of measures
5. Mandatory product registration database
5. Mandatory product registration database
8. Change least life cycle cost requirement
5. Mandatory product registration database
11. Streamline legal provisions
Weak enforcement
12. Third party certification
13. EU market surveillance authority
Non-energy environmental impacts
15. Extension of the scope to product groups other than energy-
related products
6.2.6.
Suboption to Options 1+, 2 and 3: merge ecodesign and energy labelling into one
legal instrument
This option was identified aiming to simplify the legal framework and to address the
incoherencies between ecodesign and energy labelling referred to in section 4.2.3: the empty
classes on some energy labels due to ecodesign requirements and the lack of a working plan
and a formalised stakeholder forum for Energy Labelling, while they exist under the
Ecodesign Directive. Under this option, the framework Directives would be merged and
revised into one Regulation. For product groups where there are currently both an
implementing measure for ecodesign and for energy labelling, these would be merged into
one implementing measure, thus reducing the number of implementing measures.
43
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0044.png
7.
7.1.
A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS
Approach
The analysis of impacts was supported by modelling. The model used for the impact analysis
study is the ecodesign impact accounting model developed by Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V.
(VHK), which incorporates the data from all preparatory studies and impact assessments done
for ecodesign and energy labelling. The description of the model and how the measures are
incorporate in the model is provided in Annex 5. The main model parameters identified to
influence the results were the energy prices for which sensitivity analysis was applied by
modelling and presenting results of two different assumptions as detailed in section 7.2.2. All
cost and benefits are inflation-corrected and expressed in 'Euro 2010'.
A specific study tested the consumer understanding and the effect on their purchase decisions
of the different label layouts presented in section 6.1
109
. In terms of consumer understanding
the study found that alphabetic labels scales (A+++ to D and A to G) are clearly better
understood by consumers than (reverse) numeric labels, as shown in figure 6. This confirms
the initial literature research by the study finding evidence that consumers do not understand
numerical scales as well as alphabetical scales.
Figure 6: Percentage of respondents correctly identifying the most efficient of three models with an energy
label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label
In terms of effect on purchase decisions the testing of the four labels showed a slightly
different trend: the ranking of the four labels was different for the test on televisions (figure 7)
than for washing machines (Figure figure 8). The A-G label scored best for television, but
came second for washing machines, where the reverse numeric label scored best. When the
result for both products is combined, as shown in table 1, the A-G label scores the best, with
the reverse numeric label second and the numeric label scores lowest. That pattern confirms
the findings on consumer behaviour in the first phase of the study, in which consumers where
asked how much of a premium they were prepared to pay for a more efficient product when
shown the labels.
109
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014. Second phase of the study.
44
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0045.png
Figure 7: Proportion that choose the most (TV1), middle (TV2), and least energy efficient television (TV3)
by energy label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label
Figure 8: Proportion that choose the most (washing machine 1), middle (washing machine 2), and least
energy efficient washing machine (3) by energy label. 'alphabetic' refers to the A-G label
45
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0046.png
Table 1: Consumer purchase choices for different label layouts (television and washing machines
combined)
A+++ to D
(baseline)
Most efficient
(baseline class A+++ to A+)
Middle efficient
(baseline class A+ to A)
Least efficient
(baseline class A to B)
38%
37%
25%
A-G
(measure 1A)
45%
34%
21%
Numeric
(measure 1B)
37%
36%
27%
reverse numeric
(measure 1C)
42%
36%
22%
The results from the study with regard to purchase behaviour were fed into the model
developed by VHK referred to above (detail on how the results were incorporated in the
model is provided in Annex 5).
7.2.
7.2.1.
Impacts of options
Environmental impact
The energy consumption trend for the options and the baseline are shown in figure 9. The
energy savings of the options in the year 2030 compared to the baseline are provided in table
2, broken down by product sector
110
. These results only cover energy-related products; for
other products that are also included in Option 3 additional analysis is provided further below.
Further, for the sub-options concerning the layout of the label the additional impacts that have
to be added for each of the suboptions to options 1+, 2 and 3 are provided in table 3.
As can be seen from the results, Option 1, containing only non-legislative measures, already
provides significant energy savings compared to the baseline. All measures included in this
option contribute significantly to this result
111
, with the support of joint actions by Member
States through EU projects estimated to have the highest impact.
Option 1+ provides further significant energy savings, mainly because the product registration
database reduces non-compliance rates for labelled products and provides better up-to-date
data to establish requirements. In addition, also the measure requiring higher energy label
classes for larger appliances contributes for a significant part of the further savings. The
measure requiring the provision of monetary information contributes to a lesser extent,
because it only applies to some products, but is nevertheless of importance, because it applies
to water heaters where significant further energy savings are achieved in this option.
The sub-option of the A-G label would provide further significant energy savings, whereas
the reverse numeric label would do so to a much lesser extent. The numeric label would
actually increase energy use compared to the baseline A+++ to D label, because the result of
the consumer behaviour testing presented in section 7.1 showed that it was less effective than
the current A+++ to D label. The impacts are directly related to the result of that behaviour
testing presented in table 1 (further detail in Annex 5). The result of sub-option of the A-G
110
111
These are simply the savings in the year 2030; they are not averaged over the entire modelling period
nor cumulative over a multi-year period.
Except the measure of reviewing the MEErP, which only affects non-energy environmental impacts.
46
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0047.png
label (minus 62 TWh/year in 2030; approximately 5 mtoe) is considerable and in the same
order of magnitude, although less than either of the main measures to address non-compliance
(the joint action and the product registration database). The impacts of these suboptions apply
in the same way to Options 2 and 3.
Option 2 and Option 3 give higher energy savings than Option 1+, although the incremental
savings are lower than the differences between the baseline, Option 1 and Option 1+. The
additional savings in Option 2 mainly result from higher compliance rates of products,
because of the measure requiring third party certification and because the product registration
database applies in this option also to products only covered by ecodesign.
The additional savings for energy-related products in Option 3 are mainly the result of more
ambitious ecodesign requirements, because the aim would be to set requirements at the so-
called break-even point, rather than at the least life-cycle cost point. The somewhat
unexpected result that this option only achieves modest additional energy savings compared
to Option 2 can be explained by two factors. Firstly, the measure of applying learning curves
in the least life cycle cost calculation in Options 1, 1+ and 2 already makes a significant step
in the same direction as changing the requirement to break-even point. Secondly, the measure
of applying learning curves combined with other measures in Option 2 already improve the
average efficiency of certain product groups to such extent that limits of what is considered
technologically possible are being reached in Option 2 for a number of product groups:
electric motors, ventilation units, air heaters and certain types of local heaters. The additional
measure of applying the break-even point requirement therefore does not lead to additional
energy savings for these product groups.
Figure 9: Primary energy of entire installed stock (TWh/a), total EU, years 2015-2030. Baseline and
Options 1, 1+, 2 and 3
(excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do not take into
account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
47
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0048.png
Table 2: Primary energy use compared to the baseline, EU totals for year 2030.
Excluding effects from any
change in label layout. Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy
related products, see text
Entire installed stock
Base
WATER HEATING
SPACE HEATING
SPACE COOLING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
ELECTRONICS
FOOD PRESERVATION
COOKING
CLEANING
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
ENERGY SECTOR
TOTAL in TWh primary
TOTAL (in PJ primary)
TOTAL (in mtoe primary)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Energy use, TWh/a, year 2030
Opt1
-54
-64
-7
-37
-26
-9
-19
-8
-13
-70
-4
-312
-1123
-27
Opt1+
-122
-116
-12
-38
-47
-15
-28
-10
-26
-71
-4
-488
-1759
-42
Opt2
-129
-134
-14
-55
-54
-20
-36
-13
-29
-87
-8
-579
-2084
-50
Opt3
-135
-144
-16
-71
-56
-22
-42
-16
-31
-102
-9
-643
-2316
-55
Table 3: Environmental impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ to
D label
A-G
Energy use (TWh primary)
GHG (Mt CO
2
-eq./y)
of which falling under the ETS
112
-62
-9.6
-4.4 (46%)
numeric
+17
+2.6
+1.2 (46%)
reverse numeric
-36
-5.5
-2.5 (45%)
Impacts of the options on the main environmental impacts other than energy are given in table
4 with additional impacts (applying to options 1+, 2 and 3) of greenhouse gas emissions of the
sub-options concerning the layout of the label presented in table 3. As regards material
efficiency, the review of the MEErP and implementing any updates as result of that review
(included in Options 1, 1+ and 2) is likely to have limited impact, since the MEErP has
recently been reviewed and updated to integrate some material efficiency parameters. Further,
for a number of products some developments to reduce material use (and thus also waste) are
already on-going, driven by cost reductions and technological change
113
.
112
113
EU Emission Trading System
One example of this is that the total amount (in mass) of waste of display (screens) in 2012 was higher
than the amount sold (typical ratio across EU: 1.3 with Sweden as high as 2.6). Source: Weeeforum,
Key figures report 2010-2012, 28 March 2014
48
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0049.png
Table 4: Impacts in 2030 on greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions and water use compared
to the baseline,
excluding impacts from any change in label layout.
Option 1
GHG (Mt CO
2
-eq./y)
of which falling under the ETS
114
Direct NO
x115
(kt NO
x
./y)
Direct water use
116
(million m
3
/year)
-45
-27 (60%)
-18
-139
Option 1+
-75
-41 (55%)
-27
-206
Option 2
-87
-49 (56%)
-28
-206
Option 3*
-94
-55 (59%)
-29
-206
*Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
The assessment of the impact for an extension of the scope in Option 3 to product groups
other than energy-related products is complex, because of the variety and diversity of
products and environmental impacts. A first assessment of the potential for reduction of
environmental impacts can be made by comparing the estimated environmental impact of
energy-related products with that of non-energy related products.
The use of energy-related products excluding transport equipment causes over 70% of EU
energy consumption
117
and approximately 50% of the emissions of regulated air-bound
pollutants in the EU.
118
The rest of energy use and air-bound emissions comes from transport,
agriculture and direct process emissions (from industrial processes, solvents and waste.
However, for some other environmental impacts such as water-bound emissions (heavy
metals to water, eutrophication, etc.) the share for energy-related products is small and instead
other sources are dominant (for water-bound emission agriculture and urban waste water).
However, a considerable part of environmental impacts could not be addressed by extending
the scope to all products as a significant share of the impacts is caused by services.
On the basis of the above, it is estimated that extending the scope of the Directives to cover all
other product groups can potentially have twice as much environmental impact as at present.
However, a range of environmental impacts of products other than energy-related products are
already addressed through legislation. This is particularly the case for vehicles, for which CO
2
emissions
119
, pollutant emissions
120
, end of life
121
and the use of certain refrigerants in air-
conditioning systems
122
are addressed through other EU legislation, although their production,
also significant in environmental impacts, is regulated to a more limited extent.
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
EU Emission Trading System. The GHG savings that fall under sectors of the ETS concern the savings
in electricity consumption.
For dedicated water heaters, central heating combi's for water heating, and central heating boilers for
space heating. Note that Ecodesign and Energy Labelling affects NOx emissions also indirectly:
through energy saving for product groups without explicit direct NOx emission-limits and indirectly
through electricity savings (NOx from power plants).
For washing machines and dishwashers.
Direct and indirect (through electricity generation) energy use.
Greenhouse gases (>60%), acidifying agents (NO
x
, SO
x
, NH
3
), persistent organic pollutants (POPs, e.g.
dioxins and furans) & polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), air-bound heavy metals (Cd, Pb, As,
etc.), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), particulate matter (PM). For an overview
per category based on Eurostat and data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) see Kemna, R.B.J.,
MEErP-Part 2, VHK for the European Commission, 2011.
Regulation (EC) 443/2009, Regulation (EU) 510/2011 and Directive 1999/94/EC
Directive 2005/55/EC and Regulation (EC) No 715/2007
Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC
Directive 2006/40/EC
49
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0050.png
Environmental impacts of food and drink are addressed by existing EU legislation including
through the Common Agricultural Policy's cross-compliance
123
, water, nitrates, sewage sludge
and fertiliser policy
124
and the organic label
125
, their transport
126
, emissions
127
and energy
use
128
from processing, retail
129
, packaging
130
, use
131
and waste
132
. Environmental impacts of
non-energy related products are also addressed by the EU ecolabel
133
and by green public
procurement
134
.
Due to the vast diversity of what falls under the term 'product' it is not possible to quantify the
potential for reduction of environmental impacts through the expansion of the scope of the
Directives. However, the examples provided above concerning the coverage of environmental
impacts by existing legislation for the two main sectors of transport and food and drink that
are not in the scope of the Directives show that the potential to address environmental impacts
through expansion of the scope of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling is relatively limited
compared to what at first sight might be expected.
Further, in case of labelling there are only environmental benefits if it encourages consumers
to buy products that are environmentally preferable. Testing of energy labels with
environmental life-cycle parameters
135
added showed a slight positive effect in this respect,
but at the same time consumers had difficulty understanding aspects on the labels that did not
relate to the use of the product
136
.
7.2.2.
Economic impact
The main economic impact is on consumer expenditure. Consumers include both private
consumers and commercial and industrial consumers of end-products. The consumer
expenditure is the combined expenditure of purchase of products, energy costs during usage,
and for some products, water costs during usage and/or installation and maintenance costs.
The main drivers for a change in consumer expenditure as result of the options are: 1) more
efficient appliances usually have higher purchase cost
137
; and 2) more efficient appliances
cost less to operate. Overall consumer expenditure/savings compared to the baseline are
calculated for two different assumptions for future energy price developments
138
:
1) An increase in energy prices of 4% per year, which has been the assumption in
preparatory studies for ecodesign and energy labelling and in the published report
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009
Directives 2000/60/EC and 91/676/EEC and Regulations 86/768/EEC and (EC) 2003/2003
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
See legislation on vehicles referred to earlier in the paragraph
Directive 2010/75/EC
Energy use for refrigeration/cooking/baking, which is in the scope of ecodesign and energy labelling
Commercial refrigeration for which ecodesign and energy labelling regulation is under preparation
Directive 1994/62/EC
Refrigeration and cooking appliances covered by ecodesign and energy labelling
Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm
Parameters that indicate the impact of all phases in a products' life, including production, use and
recycling/disposal.
Ipsos MORI, London Economics & AEA, Research on EU product label options, 2012
Consumer expenditure also increases, because consumers buy more appliances than they used to (e.g.
having three televisions in a house rather than one), but this does not differ between the options.
Future water price developments are fixed at an increase of 3% per year.
50
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0051.png
'ecodesign impact accounting'
139
. Corresponding results are provided in figure 10 and
table 5;
2) An increase in energy prices of 4% per year up to 2020 and of 0.5% from 2020
onwards, which reflects price developments in the PRIMES model used for the
Commission's 2014 Energy Efficiency Communication
140
. Corresponding results are
provided in figure 11 and table 6.
Under the first energy price trend assumption the consumer expenditure decreases
continuously going from Option 1 to 1+ to 2 to 3, whereas under the second energy price
trend consumer expenditure is approximately the same for all options. The figures presented
cover only energy-related products; for other products analysis is provided further below. The
overall trend that the options decrease consumer expenditure compared to the baseline is
reflected also for individual product sectors, with exception notably for space heating and
cooking
141
.
Figure 10: Consumer expenditure (billion €) for baseline and options, Total for the EU for a 4% escalation
rate for energy prices
(excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do not take into
account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
139
140
141
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/events/2014_energy_efficiency_communication_en.htm
For space heating this is because the additional energy savings as a result of the options in this impact
assessment are achieved by a shift towards (currently) expensive geo-thermal heat pumps. The
predicted increase in acquisition costs exceeds the predicted decrease in energy costs. However, the
signaled shift will increase the sales quantities for these heat pumps and it is likely (mass
production/installation) that this will lead to a further reduction of the prices per unit than those
currently assumed in the model. This price development is difficult to assess, but it might well be that
the estimated consumer expenses are too high. There is also a small such observed effect for space
cooling, for which geo-thermal heat pumps can be applied as well. For cooking the same applies as for
space heating: the increase in consumer expense derives mainly from electric hobs. In this case the
increase in efficiency implies a shift to (currently) expensive induction hobs to which the same
reasoning applies as for heat pumps.
51
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0052.png
Figure 11: Consumer expenditure (billion €) for baseline and options, Total for the EU for a 4% escalation
rate for energy prices until 2020 and 0.5% thereafter
(excluding impact from any change in label layout).
Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
Table 5: Consumer expenditure savings in 2030 for the options compared to the baseline for a 4%
escalation rate for energy prices
142
(excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for option 3 do
not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
Consumer Saving, year 2030
(bln €/a)
WATER HEATING
SPACE HEATING
SPACE COOLING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
ELECTRONICS
FOOD PRESERVATION
COOKING
CLEANING
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
ENERGY SECTOR
TOTAL in bln €/a
Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opt1
-4.7
1.9
0.0
-4.9
-2.8
-1.0
-1.4
1.6
-2.4
-5.5
-0.2
-19.5
Opt1+
-9.6
4.8
0.2
-5.4
-5.2
-1.6
-1.8
1.5
-4.3
-5.6
-0.3
-27.2
Opt2
-10.2
5.8
0.2
-7.8
-6.0
-2.1
-2.4
2.3
-4.7
-6.8
-0.4
-32.1
Opt3
-10.6
6.2
0.3
-8.5
-6.2
-2.3
-2.9
3.3
-4.9
-8.0
-0.5
-34.1
142
These are simply the savings in the year 2030; they are not averaged over the entire modelling period
nor cumulative over a multi-year period.
52
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0053.png
Table 6: Consumer expenditure savings in 2030 for the options compared to the baseline for a 4%
escalation rate for energy prices until 2020 and 0.5% thereafter
(excluding impact from any change in label
layout). Results for option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products,
see text
Consumer Saving, year 2030
(bln €/a)
WATER HEATING
SPACE HEATING
SPACE COOLING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
ELECTRONICS
FOOD PRESERVATION
COOKING
CLEANING
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
ENERGY SECTOR
TOTAL in bln €/a
Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opt1
-2.4
4.4
0.3
-3.2
-2.0
-0.7
-0.8
1.9
-1.9
-3.6
-0.1
-8.1
Opt1+
-4.5
9.4
0.6
-3.4
-3.7
-1.1
-1.1
2.0
-3.1
-3.6
-0.1
-8.6
Opt2
-4.7
11.1
0.7
-5.0
-4.3
-1.4
-1.4
2.9
-3.4
-4.4
-0.2
-10.2
Opt3
-4.9
11.9
0.9
-5.0
-4.4
-1.6
-1.7
4.0
-3.5
-5.1
-0.3
-9.8
The impact on commercial revenues of energy–related products is shown in table 7. The
additional impacts (applying to options 1+, 2 and 3) of the sub-options concerning the layout
of the label are presented in table 9. The impact on commercial revenues includes industry,
wholesale, retail, and, for some products groups, installation and maintenance. The impact on
revenues affects larger businesses and small and medium sized enterprises
143
in the same way.
While wholesale, retail, installation and maintenance are done almost completely in the EU;
part of the manufacturing is not. It is estimated that approximately 80-85% of the total
business revenues contribute to EU GDP
144
. The increase in revenue in Option 3 of € 40
billion represents a 7% increase in 2030 compared to the baseline.
The trend for the revenues follows the same trend as for the energy savings. This is because,
except for electronic products, more efficient products are more expensive. For lighting
revenues decrease, because the shift in sales to higher efficiency lamp types means mainly
LEDs, which also have longer economic lifetimes and consequently need less frequent
substitution, leading to an overall decrease in sales volumes and consequently in revenue. The
large increases in revenues for space heating and cooking are linked to their large increase in
acquisition costs due to a shift to geo-thermal heat pumps and induction hobs. If unit prices
for geo-thermal heat pumps and induction hobs would decrease further than now assumed in
the model, revenues for all options might be over-estimated.
For Option 3, there are additional significant economic impacts, because of the extension of
the scope to non-energy related products. For such products environmental impacts in the
production phase are usually of greater impact than those in the use phase. Thus, regulation of
such products would likely focus on the production phase, rather than the use phase. This
means that the environmental benefits would not result in a reduction in cost for the consumer
using the product; depending on the environmental impacts to be addressed it may increase
the purchase costs for products for the consumer. There may be indirect cost reductions, such
as reduction of costs of health care for EU tax-payers in case of reduced pollution in the EU.
However, due to the vast diversity of what would fall under the scope of 'product', it is not
possible to quantify the costs or cost reductions associated with the extension of the scope to
non-energy related products.
143
144
SMEs affected can be found mostly in the retail and installation/maintenance sector.
VHK, Assistance to the Impact Assessment for the Review of the Energy Labelling Directive and
certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive, 2014
53
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0054.png
Table 7: Revenue (sum of industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance), total for EU in year
2030, for the options compared to the baseline
(excluding impact from any change in label layout). Results for
option 3 do not take into account the extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
Revenue Increase, 2030
(billion €/a)
WATER HEATING
SPACE HEATING
SPACE COOLING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
ELECTRONICS
FOOD PRESERVATION
COOKING
CLEANING
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
ENERGY SECTOR
TOTAL in bln €/a
Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opt1
2.2
9.0
0.7
0.4
-0.4
0.0
0.3
2.2
0.4
0.8
0.1
16
Opt1+
5.9
17.9
1.3
0.8
-0.7
0.0
0.6
2.5
0.7
0.8
0.1
30
Opt2
6.3
20.7
1.6
0.9
-0.8
0.0
0.6
3.4
0.8
1.0
0.2
35
Opt3*
6.6
22.2
1.9
2.4
-0.9
0.0
0.7
4.6
0.8
1.2
0.3
40
The administrative burden for the options is provided in table 8 and table 9, with further detail
provided in Annex 9. The main driver for the burden for the Member States (negative), the
EU and the Commission is the EU market surveillance authority (in option 3).
The main drivers for the burden for manufacturers are third party certification (options 2 and
3) and the extension of the scope to non-energy related products (option 3). The measure of a
product registration database does not lead to much additional administrative burden, because
all the information manufacturers would have to register in the database is information they
already have to produce under the current energy labelling and ecodesign directive and
implementing measures before placing a product on the market. Therefore the only additional
burden is the clerical task of entering the available information into the database
145
. This
amounts to 1.5 million euro per year for the entire industry in option 1+ and 3 million euro
per year in options 2 and 3.
The main driver for the burden for dealers is the display of monetary information, which costs
2 million euro per year, (options 1+, 2 and 3) and the suboption (also in options 1+, 2 and 3)
of the A-G label, which involves rescaling. For the rescaling suppliers would, for a period of
several months after the date of application of the new label for them, supply both the new
and the old label with their products. Dealers would display the models with the old label but
keep the new label ready. On a specific date at the expiry of the transition period, dealers
would be required to replace the old label with the new one on all products that are on display
145
It is possible that the registration database de facto leads to further actual additional administrative
burden. This would be the case for manufacturers that currently do not comply with the requirements to
produce technical documentation before placing a product on the market. However, this non-
compliance is one of the reasons for the problem that market surveillance authorities are facing:
obtaining technical documentation often takes several weeks, in part because the manufacturers only
start producing it after the request. The requirement to register technical documentation would not only
solve the problem for market surveillance authorities, but also correct this de facto non-level playing
field between manufacturers.
54
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0055.png
in the shops. For any products that were already in the shop before the transition period
started, dealers would have to obtain a new label from the supplier (further practical and
administrative details on rescaling are provided in Annex 8). This is estimated to cost 50
million euro for manufacturers and 10 million euro for dealers every 5-10 years.
Given that compliance is mandatory, manufacturers and dealers should be able to pass their
costs on to consumers and thus they can be offset against the benefits for consumers.
Comparison with the benefits in consumer expenditure and commercial revenues shown
above reveals that the administrative costs are offset manifold by the monetary benefits.
Table 8: Total approximate additional administrative and compliance costs in EU per option compared to
baseline (detail in Annex 9),
excluding impact from any change in label layout
Option 1
Manufacturers
Dealers
Member States
EU/Commission
Total (rounded)
none
none
none
€ 3.0 million/year
€ 3 million/year
Option 1+
€ 1.5 million/year
€ 2 million/year
none
€ 2.7 million/year
€ 6 million/year
Option 2
€ 140 million/year
€ 2 million/year
none
€ 2.3 million/year
€ 145 million/year
Option 3
€ 500-1000 million/y
€ 2 million/year
minus € 10 million/y
€ 32 million/year
€ 500-1000 million/y
Table 9: Economic impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ to D
label
A-G
Consumer expenditure at 4% energy price
escalation rate (billion € per year)
Consumer expenditure at 0.5% energy price
escalation rate from 2020 (billion € per year)
Commercial revenues (billion € per year)
Administrative burden for suppliers (million
€)
Administrative burden for dealers (million
€)
-3.7
-1.2
+3.7
50
(every 5-10 years)
10
(every 5-10 years)
numeric
+1.0
+0.3
-1.0
50
(only once)
10
(only once)
reverse numeric
-2.2
-0.8
+2.1
50
(only once)
10
(only once)
55
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0056.png
7.2.3.
Social impact
The impact in 2030 on jobs
146
in industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance per
option compared to the baseline is shown in table 10 and the additional impact (applying to
options 1+, 2 and 3) of the sub-options concerning the layout of the label presented in table
11. It is estimated that industry jobs constitute 55% of total jobs and 70% of those are inside
the EU. Estimating that wholesale, retail and installer jobs are almost completely inside the
EU, this means that around 85% of the total direct jobs are created inside the EU
147
. Job
creation for wholesale, retail and installers is expected to be even across the EU. Job creation
in industry will be to a different extent in different Member States, depending on the extent of
their current manufacturing industry in these sectors. Given that the main product sector
where the increase takes place is the heating sector, for which the jobs are mostly in industry
and installation, based on current employment patterns in that sector, it is expected that the
job creation is skewed towards men rather than women and towards low and medium-skilled
workers, rather than high-skilled workers.
The trend for the options follows the same trend as for the commercial revenues as they are
closely linked: in the model, the direct jobs are calculated from the increase in revenue and
the average turnover per employee in the various sectors. This approach is generic for all
products, whereas the employment effects are in fact, in part, expected to be related to the
specific technology used for each specific product. As a general approach this may therefore
overestimate the direct jobs. In addition, if the revenues for space heating and cooking are
over-estimated by the model as hypothesized above, then also the increase in direct jobs for
those products would be overestimated for all options; this effect alone could mean an
overestimation by a factor two.
Table 10: Direct jobs increase (sum of industry, retail, wholesale, installation and maintenance), total for
EU in year 2030, for the options compared to the baseline
(excluding impact from any change in label
layout). Results may be significantly overestimated, see text, and results for option 3 do not take into account the
extension of the scope to non-energy related products, see text
Direct jobs increase, 2030
(in 1000 jobs)
WATER HEATING
SPACE HEATING
SPACE COOLING
VENTILATION
LIGHTING
ELECTRONICS
FOOD PRESERVATION
COOKING
CLEANING
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opt1
32
128
11
6
-7
0
5
40
6
10
Opt1+
83
254
18
12
-13
0
10
44
12
10
Opt2
89
295
23
13
-15
0
12
61
14
13
Opt3
94
316
27
32
-15
0
12
82
15
16
146
147
Note that these are direct jobs, i.e. in the production and trade column of the products; indirect jobs, i.e.
those jobs created by the spending power of the direct employees, may be three to five times higher, but
VHK notes in their report on ecodesign impact accounting that
"no consensus agreed factor is
available".
VHK, Assistance to the Impact Assessment for the Review of the Energy Labelling Directive and
certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive, 2014
56
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0057.png
ENERGY SECTOR
TRANSPORT SECTOR
TOTAL
0
0
0
2
0
233
2
0
432
4
0
509
5
0
584
In terms of impacts on vulnerable consumers, the improvement of compliance in all options,
ranging from some improvement in option 1 to a high improvement in option 3, benefits them
in particular, reducing the risk that they unknowingly end up buying products that consume
more energy than they intended and can afford. More generally, they benefit from lower costs
over the life cycle of the product. For the product groups where there the costs over the life
cycle could increase (space heating, space cooling and cooking) this increase is caused by
particularly high upfront purchase costs of advanced technologies of which the sales is
encouraged by a good energy label class. Because of the particularly high upfront cost,
vulnerable consumers are unlikely to purchase these technologies. Alternative technologies
are still available to them, except possibly in the case of option 3, where the measure of
changing the least life cycle cost requirement under the ecodesign directive would remove the
least life cycle cost technologies from the market. Thus, only in the case that option 3 would
be selected, would mitigation measures for vulnerable consumers need to be foreseen.
The additional impact (applying to options 1+, 2 and 3) of the sub-options concerning the
layout of the label presented in table 11. The trends follow the same trends as for energy
savings.
Table 11: Social impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ label.
Results may be significantly overestimated, see text
A-G
Direct jobs (1000 jobs)
+52.2
numeric
-13.6
reverse numeric
+30.1
With regard to potential social impacts in the area of fundamental rights, in particular on the
protection of personal data, the establishment of a mandatory product registration database
(included in option 1+, 2 and 3) could have an impact as the concept of protection of data
148
,
generally limited to natural persons, can be extended to legal persons, but only in so far as the
official title of the legal person identifies one or more natural persons
149
. No such cases are
known for the manufacturers of energy-related products. In any case, manufacturers are
already required to put their name or trade mark on the energy label. For data that may be
commercially sensitive (technical documentation and test reports) access would be restricted
to the market surveillance authorities and the Commission, who are also today the only ones
that have to be given access to them (on request).
7.2.4.
Impacts of merging ecodesign and energy labelling
The suboption to Options 1+, 2 and 3 (merging ecodesign and energy labelling into one legal
instrument) only has an impact on administrative burden. The suboption can also address the
two issues of incoherence that were identified: the empty classes on some energy labels due to
ecodesign requirements, and the lack of a working plan and a formalised stakeholder forum
148
149
Enshrined in Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC
C-92/09, point 53
57
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0058.png
for Energy Labelling, while they exist under the Ecodesign Directive. Under this option, the
framework Directives would be merged and revised into one Regulation. However, no
impacts are assumed from addressing these problems through a merger of the frameworks,
because the incoherencies can already be addressed in the Options 1+, 2 and 3 without such
merger. The problem of the empty classes can be addressed through revising the energy label,
which is done under all three options. The problem that there is no working plan and a
formalised stakeholder forum for energy labelling, while there is for ecodesign, can already be
addressed through energy labelling only.
The impacts in terms of administrative burden are the following:
–
The Commission would have reduced work, because sections concerning
definitions and measurement and calculation methods that are usually identical
in both ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for a specific product group
would have to be drafted and revised only once, instead of twice. However, it
is still only a small reduction of burden, because other parts of ecodesign and
energy labelling regulations, which are the majority, are different.
Manufacturers would be able to find their obligations for energy labelling and
ecodesign in one regulation rather than in two. However, the impact of this is
small, since the number of requirements on manufacturers is unlikely to change
as a result of the merger (and other requirements on the products, e.g.
concerning safety, remain laid down in other legislation).
Member States would have one less separate sector for their market
surveillance of EU product legislation. However, most Member States have
already combined the market surveillance for energy labelling and ecodesign in
the same authority, and the number of requirements they have to enforce is
unlikely to change as a result of the merger.
As suboption under option 1+, Member States would have to delete their
transposition law on ecodesign as a result of the merger of the Directives into
one Regulation, while otherwise they would not need to do so because option
1+ does not imply changes to the Ecodesign Directive. This means a one-off
slight increase in administrative burden.
–
–
–
The above impacts on administrative burden are small, because ecodesign and energy
labelling regulations for specific products are currently already developed in parallel by the
Commission, even though there is no legal provision that arranges this.
In order to merge the two frameworks a number of issues would have to be resolved. Firstly,
the legal basis for the two frameworks is different. The Energy Labelling Directive is based
on Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the legal base for
measures on energy. The Ecodesign Directive is based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, the legal base for measures for the functioning of the
internal market. While it would seem possible to have a legal base of Article 114 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (the 1992 Energy Labelling Directive
150
had, in
absence of a provision for energy in the Treaty, such legal base), there is a risk that this could
unintentionally limit Member States legislating on provision of information on energy-related
150
Council Directive 92/75/EC
58
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0059.png
products that may be complementary to the energy label
151
. Secondly, for the suboption under
options 1+ and 2, the issue of the different scope of ecodesign and energy labelling would
have to be resolved. While option 3 foresees expansion and harmonisation of the scope, under
options 1+ and 2, the scope of both frameworks remains as they currently are, which is
different: ecodesign covers all life cycle phases and environmental impacts, while energy
labelling is limited to energy and resources in the use phase of the product.
151
E.g. France's consumer protection law on the provision of information on availability of spare parts
59
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0060.png
8.
C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS
This chapter summarises the pros and cons of the policy options in terms of their effectiveness
in meeting the objectives (table 12) and their associated costs and benefits weighed against
the baseline scenario (table 13Table). The comparison of the suboptions for the label layout is
shown in table 14; these results add to options 1+, 2 and 3 in the same way.
Box 2: Overview of the policy options
Options
Option 0:
No change ("baseline option")
Option 1:
Improvements within the existing regulatory framework, notably funding EU joint
market surveillance actions
Option 1+:
Option 1 combined with some changes to the Energy Labelling Directive, notably
requiring labelled products to be registered in a database and improving the legal structure by
changing to a Regulation and aligning it the market surveillance regulation.
Option 2:
Option 1+ combined with changes to the Ecodesign Directive, notably requiring
ecodesign products to be registered in a database and requiring third party certification for all
products under its scope.
Option 3:
Changing the scope of both Directives to cover all products instead of only energy-
related products, requiring products to be registered in a database, requiring third party
certification for all products under its scope and market surveillance done by an EU authority.
Suboption to option 1+, 2 and 3: merge ecodesign and energy labelling into one legal
instrument.
Suboptions for the label layout
Option 0 and 1 include:
current A+++ to D and not updating the label
Other options can include alternative suboptions:
Alphabetic label:
A to G with reclassification when updating the label
Numeric label:
0 to 100 with top classes in grey only becoming available when updating
Reverse numeric label:
7 to 1 with classes 8, 9 etc. being added on top when updating
60
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0061.png
Table 12: Qualitative comparison of the impact of the options with regard to the objectives,
Baseline
Functioning of the internal market
Reduce energy consumption of products
Reduce other environmental impacts
Simple, apt for purpose and future-proof
Cost-effective
Relevant and useful to consumers
Enforce easily and appropriately
In line with international obligations
Table legend:
Extent to which the objective is achieved
Grey scale
Little
Some
To significant
extent
Thoroughly
Option 1
Option 1+
Option 2
Option 3
How to interpret table 12
The
baseline
does not address the problems. It ensures functioning of the internal market and
achieves energy savings in and a reasonably cost-effective way. However, it offers no
solutions to the problems of non-compliance and reduced effectiveness of labels on
consumers, nor does it offer simplifications.
Option 1
secures some progress towards further energy savings and reducing non-
compliance, but cannot achieve all objectives satisfactorily, in particular non-legislative
action cannot address the problem of the label layout.
Option 1+
achieves significant progress in further energy savings, reduction of non-
compliance and better labels for consumers. This is achieved in a cost-effective way, saving
consumer money. It simplifies legislation through coherence with the market surveillance
regulation and revision of the Energy Labelling Directive. The choice of instrument for that
revision, a Regulation, is appropriate for obligations that apply directly to economic operators
and is in line with the EU's better regulation agenda.
Option 2
is with regard to the objectives different from option 1+ mainly with respect to
international obligations, for which the measure requiring third party certification for all
product covered by ecodesign could create disproportionate obstacles with regard to
international trade . It is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected by
introducing third party verification for all products regardless of it being duly justified and
proportionate to the risk of non-compliance. Another difference is that would include a
revision of the Ecodesign Directive simplifying it into a Regulation.
Option 3
achieves significant progress in reducing environmental impacts other than energy
consumption. However, from the analysis it is not obvious whether this policy is the right
61
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0062.png
instrument for that: for a number of product types it overlaps with other environmental
policies. As such, it does not lead to simplification, nor is it particularly cost-effective. Unlike
for the other options, it is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected for this
option: it appears to go beyond what is necessary to achieve the identified objectives, at least
for those non-energy related products that are covered to significant extent by existing
legislation. In addition, like option 2 it could create disproportionate obstacles with regard to
international trade and it is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected by
introducing third party verification for all products regardless of it being duly justified and
proportionate to the risk of non-compliance.
Table 13: Summary of the impacts estimates compared to the baseline, excluding impact from any change
in label layout
Option 1
Option 1+
Option 2
Option 3*
Environmental impacts
Energy use (TWh primary/year)
GHG (Mt CO
2
-eq./y)
-310
-45
Economic impacts
Consumer expenditure at 4% energy
price escalation rate (billion € per year)
Consumer expenditure at 0.5% energy
price escalation rate from 2020 (billion €
per year)
Commercial revenues (billion € per
year)
-20
-27
-32
at best similar
to option 2
at best similar
to the other
options
not available
-490
-75
-580
-87
better than
option 2
better than
option 2
-8
-9
-10
+16
Social impact
+30
+35
Direct jobs (1000 jobs)**
+230
+430
+510
not available
Administrative burden
Administrative burden (million € per
year)
+3
+6
+145
+500-1000
*Due to the inclusion of the extension of the scope to non-energy related products in this option, some
quantifications for this option are not available and others not to the same extent as for the other options
**The direct jobs creation may be significantly overestimated, see explanation in section 7.2.3.
With regard to stakeholder views, Option 1 has little support from stakeholders, while Option
1+ has significant support from stakeholders: the vast majority is of the view that the Energy
Labelling Directive needs to be changed to achieve energy savings closer to the full economic
technical potential. Option 2, revising also the Ecodesign Directive, is supported by a smaller
62
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0063.png
share of stakeholders. In particular industry interest groups are not convinced about the need
for changes to the Ecodesign Directive
152
. Green NGOs support option 3.
The suboption to merge the ecodesign and energy labelling has the additional effect of
slightly reduced administrative burden for the Commission and manufacturers, although in the
case of Option 1+ it also means a slight additional administrative burden for Member States.
The suboption of merging is not proportionate in the case of Option 1+, because the measures
in that option do not require a revision of ecodesign.
Table 14: Impacts in 2030 for the different label layouts compared to the baseline A+++ label
A-G
Environmental impacts
Energy use (TWh primary/year)
GHG (Mt CO
2
-eq./y)
-62
-9.6
Economic impacts
Consumer expenditure at 4% energy price
escalation rate (billion € per year)
Consumer expenditure at 0.5% energy price
escalation rate from 2020 (billion € per year)
Commercial revenues (billion € per year)
-3.7
-1.2
+3.7
Social impact
Direct jobs (1000 jobs)*
+52.2
Administrative burden
153
Administrative burden for business (million
€)
60
(every 5-10 years)
60
(only once)
60
(only once)
-13.6
+30.1
+1.0
+0.3
-1.0
-2.2
-0.8
+2.1
+17
+2.6
-36
-5.5
numeric
reverse numeric
*The direct jobs creation may be significantly overestimated, see explanation in section 7.2.3.
With regard to the label layout, the A+++ to D and the reverse numeric label do not have
much support from stakeholders. The vast majority supports an A-G label, though not all
manufacturers and retailers do. The numeric label is supported by some industry interest
groups.
The above comparison shows that of the options that have most support from stakeholders,
option 1+ that revises the Energy Labelling Directive, but not the Ecodesign Directive,
achieves significantly higher energy savings and positive economic and social impacts than
Options 0 and 1. Option 2 and 3 achieve even better results in these categories
154
, but they do
not score as well in achieving the objective of being in line with international obligations and
for option 3 it is not obvious that the principle of proportionality is respected.
152
154
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.7
Although the difference in economic impacts between options 1+ and 2 is close to the margin of error
of the analysis.
63
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
The label layout that has most support from stakeholders, the A-G label, scores the best on all
aspects, except administrative costs related to the rescaling of the label. Given that
compliance is mandatory, suppliers and dealers should be able to pass these costs on to
consumers. For consumers, these costs more than offset against their monetary benefits
resulting from the A-G label's superior effect.
64
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
9.
M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION
The general objectives of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directive are to ensure the
functioning of the internal market and a high level of environmental and consumer protection.
The functioning of the internal market is ensured under both frameworks by a requirement for
Member States to allow the free movement of products compliant with the respective EU
rules. Member States are required to notify to the Commission their (draft) legislation that
could potentially be an obstacle to the free movement of goods. The indicator of success in
this case is the number of national pieces of legislation concerning environmental impacts of
energy-related products that are notified to the Commission (the lower the number, the better).
Environmental and consumer protection is ensured through the reduction of energy
consumption and other significant environmental impacts. The indicator of success is the
reduction in the product's impact in the categories regulated in the delegated acts. Progress is
monitored product by product: under both the existing and the proposed framework, the
product-specific delegated acts require reviews to be carried out some years after their entry
into force. Such reviews gather information about the environmental performance of the
products in scope that are sold and used in the EU. Thereby, progress is tracked compared to
the situation before the adoption of the acts, and necessary adjustments can be made to the
requirements, if there is technologically feasible and cost-effective further improvement
potential. This also allows checking progress towards the operational objective of the present
review, increasing the effectiveness of the labelling scheme by allowing a rescaling of those
labels where only the top classes are populated today due to technological development.
Results can be monitored in the context of subsequent reviews of the concerned delegated
acts, which will be able to measure the acceleration of market transformation thanks to
rescaling, compared to the current speed of transformation. The measures establishing an
energy-related products database study and a mandatory product registration database would
also provide the Commission with more solid data to monitor and evaluate progress towards
meeting the objective of further energy savings.
Reporting by Member States on the result of market surveillance under the market
surveillance regulation would provide the Commission with data on enforcement actions and
compliance, allowing to verify whether compliance rates are increasing as a result of market
surveillance enhanced through the use of the product database. The Administrative
Cooperation ('ADCO', see Annex 3) group on market surveillance on ecodesign and energy
labelling provides a platform in which the reports on of market surveillance activities can be
jointly analysed with the Member States market surveillance authorities.
The next evaluation of the Energy Labelling framework is foreseen in 5-10 years. It should
building on the ex-post evaluation of product-specific review studies, evaluate the
effectiveness of the framework in ensuring the free movement of goods and the reduction of
energy consumption and other significant environmental impacts of products, especially with
regard to improvements achieved in the rate of market transformation by rescaled labels, and
in the rate of market surveillance thanks to the product database.
65
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0066.png
A
NNEX
1 – U
SE OF EXPERTISE AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES
External expertise
Two studies were specifically commissioned to prepare the review:
(1)
Ecofys, Waide Strategic Efficiency, University of Coimbra, SEVEn7, SoWatt &
Öko-Institute, Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of
the Ecodesign Directive, 2014.
The study produced the following final reports:
•
•
•
•
(2)
Literature review
155
Survey results
156
Assessment scope expansion
157
Final technical report
158
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of
potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions,
2014.
159
Further studies requested by the Commission during 2011-2014 also provided relevant input:
•
•
•
•
VHK, Ecodesign impact accounting part 1, May 2014
160
Ecofys, Impacts of the EU’s Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre labelling legislation
on third jurisdictions, 30 April 2014
161
Ecofys, Impact of Ecodesign and Energy/Tyre Labelling on R&D and
Technological Innovation, 23 May 2014
162
COWI & BIO Intelligence Service, Assessing the data collected in the
framework of the Ecodesign and Labelling annual market surveillance data
collection exercise run by the Commission, on-going
CentERdata, Ecorys & GfK, Study on the effects on consumer behaviour of
online sustainability information displays, 2014
163
•
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_I_-_Literature_report.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-
Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Background_document_III_-
_assessment_scope_expansion_-_final.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/201404_ieel_third_jurisdictions.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/201405_ieel_product_innovation.pdf
66
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0067.png
•
•
•
Ipsos MORI, London Economics & AEA, Research on EU product label
options, 2012
164
BIO Intelligence Service, Material-efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to
the Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP), 2013
JRC-IES “Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in
European product policies – Second phase”, 2012.
A study by VHK "Assistance to the Impact Assessment for the Review of the Energy
Labelling Directive and certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive" provided specific analysis
for the options set out in this impact assessment, notably through modelling, see Annex 5.
Consultation
Three stakeholder meetings were organised by the contractor of the evaluation study: on 27
June 2013, 14 October 2013 and 18 February 2014. A website was maintained where minutes
and other documents related to these meetings were published
165
. As the second meeting took
place in the context of the public consultation it was chaired by the Commission.
The public consultation ran from 31 August to 30 November 2013 on the ‘Your voice in
Europe’ web page. The consultation was separated in two different questionnaires targeting
different actors: a survey with 47 questions targeted interest groups, government bodies and
experts. A shorter survey with 20 questions targeted consumers and individual retailers and
manufacturers and was translated into all EU official languages. 138 Responses were received
to the longer survey, of which 58 from manufacturers and their interest groups, 20 from
government bodies, 13 from environmental interest groups and 9 from consumer interest
groups. 197 Responses were received to the shorter survey, of which 127 from consumers
(from 18 EU Member States; almost one third from France), 40 from retailers (almost all from
Germany) and 30 from manufacturers (half of which from Germany). A detailed summary of
the respondents and responses was published in February 2014
166
.
In conjunction with the contractors' meeting on 18 February, the Commission organised a
stakeholder meeting on 19 February 2014 on the results from testing a preliminary set of
energy label designs and the proposed energy label designs for further testing. The minutes of
the meeting can be found further below in this Annex.
In the context of the review, the Commission organised on 20 and 21 February 2014 a
Conference on Products Policy: International Trends in Ecodesign and Energy Labelling.
More than 400 participants from approximately 50 different countries attended. The three
plenary sessions and six workshops included 51 speakers, panellists and moderators, a
majority of which came from the public sector (34%), followed by the private sector (32%),
academics/researchers/consultants (21%) and NGOs (13%). 16% of the speakers/panellists
came from outside the EU. Key outcomes of the conference were:
•
As regards the review of the energy label, there is consensus that continuing with the
A+++ label (i.e. arriving at 4, 5 or 6 plusses) is not sustainable and has to be
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/effects-consumer-behaviour-online-sustainability-
information-displays-study-report
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2012-12-research-eu-product-label-options.pdf
http://www.energylabelevaluation.eu/
http://www.energylabelevaluation.eu/tmce/BUINL13345_Survey_Report_def.pdf
163
164
165
166
67
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0068.png
addressed. Rescaling of the label (meaning that an A-labelled product today would
become a C or D-labelled product tomorrow) is an option which has been
implemented successfully in other jurisdictions (notably Australia).
•
Further international cooperation was welcomed by everybody although it will not be
easy as there are no obvious 'low hanging fruit'. The focus should be on convergence
of standards and test methods.
More effective market surveillance is crucial to ensure a level playing field for
industry and to provide consumers with reliable information. More collaboration
between Member State authorities and the establishment of obligatory product
registration by manufacturers (as already happens in USA and Brazil) were seen as
key areas for future work.
•
Further details of the conference, including all presentations, are available online.
167
The Commission organised an Ecodesign Consultation Forum on the review of the Directives
on 11 June 2014. The minutes of the meeting can be found further below in this Annex.
Minutes of the consultation meeting organised by the services of the European Commission
on the method to update existing energy label scales to reflect technological progress of the
labelled products
Date: 19 February 2014, 9:00 – 13:00
Venue: Charlemagne building (Room De Gasperi) at 170, Rue de la Loi, Brussels.
1.
Introduction by European Commission, DG Energy
The Chair (P. Hodson, Head of Unit for Energy Efficiency, DG Energy) welcomed
participants and indicated that the on-going work on the review of the Energy Labelling
Directive and Ecodesign Directive should make it possible for the new Commission to
proceed with this towards the end of 2014. The work on the review started in May 2013 with
a study led by Ecofys and one of the key topics is the label design for which a second study
by London Economics and Ipsos tests consumer understanding and behaviour. The objective
of this meeting is as much as possible to find consensus on which four label designs to test.
2.
Findings from the Energy Labelling Directive's Evaluation Study on the method to
update existing energy label scales to reflect technological progress of the labelled products
(P. Waide on behalf of Ecofys and their consortium partners)
See presentation in Annex I
3.
Results from testing a preliminary set of energy label designs (Ch. Duke on behalf of
London Economics / IPSOS)
See presentation in Annex II
4.
167
Questions of clarification
http://www.amiando.com/PolicyProductsConference2014.html
68
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0069.png
ECOS
indicated that the energy label not only serves to compare specific products, but also to
compare with the market as a whole, which was the objective of the idea of the benchmark
marker and this second aspect should somehow be addressed.
CECED
asked whether P.Waide had specific evidence for the statement that products are
often designed to just meet the thresholds of label classes. P. Waide confirmed that there was
research from early in the implementation of the energy label that indeed showed this.
CECED further inquired about the confidence intervals for the first phase of the London
Economics/IPSOS study. Ch. Duke did not have these intervals at hand but indicated that due
to the large sample sizes (about 3000 for each label tested) confidence levels are relatively
high. CECED also noted that the willingness of consumers to spend money is a complex
matter with many factors whereas the experiments in the first phase of the London
Economics/IPSOS study reflect an extreme simplification of reality and therefore one should
be cautious on aspects related to money. Ch. Duke replied that the simulated environment is
indeed simplified and that this has both benefits and weaknesses. A weakness is indeed that in
reality many other things have an impact. A benefit is that the experiment allows comparison
under the exact same conditions.
Italy
indicated that the Australian approach on updating energy labels referred to by P. Waide
no longer applies: today further stars ('superclasses') are added to the existing six. P. Waide
indicated that this is true for some products, but that he understood consumers had difficulty
understanding the superclasses. Italy further indicated that the difference in understanding
between the A-G label and others in the first phase of the London Economics/IPSOS study is
small given that the A-G labels are well-known and the others are not; thus any of the labels
can be considered to be understandable. In the first instance, the rules on how to update
existing energy label scales should be fixed and only after that should further consumer
understanding testing be done.
The Netherlands
responded to the remark by Italy, indicating that not only understanding is
important, but also behaviour and if a label is less effective in that respect, manufacturers can
ask less money for appliances in better classes. Moreover, the Netherlands indicated that the
Ecofys study put too much emphasis on how consumers react to labels and too little on the
position/role of suppliers and dealers. The study also sketches an ideal picture on changing
labels whereas the reality is more complex: there are still old-style EU energy labels to be
found in shops. The transition period should not be taken lightly; any continuous transition
might create confusion.
BSH
indicated that the Australian approach has led to classes that are unattainable with
reasonable economic effort. P. Waide responded that that is a relevant issue, but separate from
the one under discussion.
Francisco Zuloaga
remarked that the comments on the Australian experience showed that
good market data is the basis for a good discussion.
Electrolux
stated that they were concerned about frequent changes to the label, which is a
problem for innovation and for consumers. There could be scope for an A-G label under the
right conditions.
5.
Proposed energy label designs for further testing (European Commission, DG Energy)
69
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0070.png
6.
Public debate on the proposed energy label designs and on the method for testing them
(moderated by the European Commission, DG Energy)
The Chair
indicated that a maximum of four labels can be tested, but they do not have to be
the four labels suggested. He invited participants to comment particularly on the labels they
liked with the aim to improve them.
The Ökopol institute
inquired why the benchmark marker was only included in label 3 and
suggested it might better be left out, possibly to be tested in a later phase.
Denmark
remarked that while the A-G label seems to them the best for consumers, for the
testing their comments concerned labels 3 and 4. These should be combined, taking the best
from each by introducing the benchmark and the top grey classes from label 3 in label 4.
Further, concerning the testing methodology consumers should be given information on the
labels in advance to avoid bias because some labels are close to the current one and others are
not.
EHI
pointed to the specificities for heating products as opposed to washing machines,
televisions and lamps on which the to be tested labels are based. Heating products have
different characteristics, e.g. lifetime, and are not yet labelled, only from 2015.
ECOS
stated that label 1 should not be tested as no one is in favour of using that. Label 3
incorporates too many innovative elements at the same time, each of those should be tested
separately; the benchmark marker could be left out. The methodology for testing should
include assessing consumers' willingness to pay. Further, it is important to know whether
70
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
consumers expect the label to be about energy efficiency or absolute energy consumption.
Concerning the bottom part of the label something better than 'kWh/annum' is needed e.g. an
extra horizontal scale.
Italy
indicated that whatever methodology would be chosen, it would always have
weaknesses, but this should not be used to reject the result. Italy indicated it preferred label 3,
but the benchmark marker is a problem and also the number on the arrow does not
correspond to the number on the class. Further, the transition period between two generations
of labels, a weak point of label 2, should be tested. Italy further inquired how the countries in
which the tests will take place were selected.
IKEA
remarked that they would be interested to see more on pricing so that consumers can
see what they will be saving on their energy bills. IKEA indicated that Label 1 is not an
option whereas label 2 is. For label 3 the year number on the benchmark marker is confusing.
The grey scales on that label are interesting though they add more information/complexity;
they are not needed at the bottom.
The
Rhineland-Palatinate Consumer Organisation
suggested that for the methodology
more than just 2-3 products in the shop should be labelled to get closer to real conditions. The
interviews should include a question on why consumers choose a certain product. The test
should include more complex products such as air conditioners. Label 1 should not be
included. Label 2 should include a year number to distinguish the generation of the label.
Label 3 and 4 should be made clearer; the numbers may not be understood by consumers.
ANEC/BEUC
suggested that since it is well-known that label 2 works best, both in terms of
understanding and behaviour, the focus should be on how to improve that label. The word
'annum' on the label is not understood by all consumers. The benchmark marker in label 3
could give the wrong impression that is also covers non-energy aspects. In the methodology
for testing consumers should not be given prior information on the labels. Concerning
transition periods between labels the current process does not seem the right process to look at
this. The key issue for the current study is to make a better scale. The transition process is an
issue that needs to be looked at separately to ensure that it will not confuse consumers.
CECED
remarked that the label is a tool that should work on the market at all times.
Therefore, there is a need to test transition scenarios, because two labels will co-exist on the
market. This needs to be tested in brick-and-mortar stores. Some of the suggested label
designs could be improved. The benchmark marker could be taken out and for label 4 the
scale could run from 7 to 1 instead of 12 to 6. Concerning the methodology for testing it
seems that the question 'Which appliance would you buy?' covers the entire evaluation
process of which energy efficiency is only a part. Instead the question ' Which appliance is
more efficient?' should be asked.
The
German Retail Federation
indicated that the benchmark marker should be left out of
label 3. The question 'Which appliance would you buy?' would lead to skewed result if it is
not actually bought. Any result on understanding would not be useful if not the question of
rescaling is taken into account. Further, also the administrative burden of rescaling should be
taken into account.
Sweden
suggested an alternative label design with an A-G scale which has grey arrows added
on the top. The benchmark marker is not needed, because the grey arrows already provide an
indication of such information. However, the year of the label needs to be added. The labels
71
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
should be tested not only on consumers, but also on manufacturers and retailers. QR codes on
the label are very important and should therefore already now be included.
CLASP
indicated that they missed a clear statement of the research question being asked. A
clear rationale for the different label elements is missing. There should be a more
methodological approach.
Consumers Futures UK
stated that an inquiry among 4000 consumers showed that they were
interested in running costs. However, introducing a second rating chart with running cost
would be confusing. Further, not only do consumers have difficulty with the word 'annum' on
the label, but also with 'kWh'. They suggested the potential for open data should be explored,
although it is not clear whether this should be done through QR codes.
Francisco Zuloaga
remarked that there is no need to test label 1. Further, since the first part
of the study already tested understanding, the second part could instead focus on rescaling.
Belgium
indicated that it fully supported that all the suggested four labels will be tested. The
experiment should be as open as possible to new ideas at this stage. However, label 1 should
have A+++ on top and not A++++. Such a label would also allow rescaling and the A+++
could be indicated in grey. Grey scales at the bottom do not seem useful, but at the top they
are more interesting. For label 3 the benchmark marker is interesting and can be included as
such. It is good to test in brick-and-mortar shops to understand the actions of consumers in an
actual situation. All four labels offer the possibility or rescaling though this study should be
about the layout. However, it is also necessary to take into account how manufactures and
retailers react to the situation of rescaling. A questionnaire should be presented to the retailers
participating in the experiment. Belgium asked whether it was possible to test a layout where
the length of the bars represents the energy consumption. Belgium further inquired whether
the black arrow should give alphabetic or numeric information and whether 0-100 scale in
label 3 represents the energy efficiency index.
Germany
indicated that label 1 is not an option and that instead the A+++ label should serve
as the business as usual scenario. Label 2 should be tested with a rescaling scenario and
include a validity year on the label. Label 3 should be tested without the benchmark marker as
it has a key influence on the result. Such additional elements could be tested in a second
phase. There should not be a number in the arrow on this label, but instead the arrow should
be in the colour of the class. For label 4 they inquired why it runs from 12 to 6 and not from 7
to 1.
France
remarked that testing label 1 is not a good idea. The current three plusses on the label
is already a lot. Label 2 should be tested with a rescaling scenario. Label 3 should be tested
without a benchmark and perhaps an A-G label with grey zones could be tested. Label 4 is not
clearly understandable. Labels 2 and 3 are the most important to test as well as an A-G label
with grey zones. The labels should also be tested with manufacturers and retailers.
The Netherlands
stated that this study cannot and does not need to solve all issues; it should
not try to solve the transition process. If there is a transition, this will apply to all label
designs, not just for label 2. It is possible for label 2 to be used for 10 years without transition.
The research of this study should be kept simple. Label 1 seems awkward for experts, but on
second thought it is useful to test, because not all those involved are experts. The benchmark
marker should be left out of label 3. Both understanding and effectiveness should be tested.
72
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Orgalime
remarked that it is necessary to make sure that the labels are comparable. They
asked why the benchmark marker was only included in label 3. The transition process from
the current to the new label should be tested as well as further updates of the label.
The
United Kingdom
remarked that it is necessary to test a business-as-usual label, but it
seems this should be an A+++ label rather than label 1. There should not be a benchmark
marker in label 3.
Austria
suggested leaving out label 1 because it is not consistent, combining alphabetic with
symbolic elements. Leaving it out increases the sample size for the testing of the other three
labels. In label 3 there is no added value to include the benchmark marker. It is also better for
the consumer not to include grey areas. Further, the question is which label both consumers
and industry will accept.
The
German Federal Environment Agency
supplemented the German comments by
remarking that also the absolute energy consumption is important and that it should be
investigated whether for some appliances an indication 'per cycle' would be more motivating
than 'per annum'.
BSH
stated that the co-existence of different labels should be addressed and that it is possible
to test this without making the experiment too complex. If needed, BSH is available to assist
on this.
Ch. Duke
responded to a number of methodological questions raised. Responding to CECED,
she indicated that the experiment will ask consumers which product they would buy, but also
why they would buy that one and which they think is more efficient. Responding to Italy she
explained that for the selection of the countries for the testing in the second part of the study it
was attempted to get a mix in geographic coverage while having a practical approach: testing
in brick-and-mortar shops is not very common and agreements with retailers are key.
Responding to the Rhineland-Palatinate Consumer Organisation she explained that only a
limited number of products in the shops can be labelled for the experiment as it is using
valuable store space and it is not practical to do it on the whole shop floor.
The Chair
made the following points on the basis of the discussion:
−
There is a need for a business-as-usual label, but it would indeed be better to use the
A+++ label for that purpose than label 1.
−
No one argued against label 2; there were only remarks on the transition phase. There
is a trade-off on the understanding of the labels versus the transition and rescaling. If a
transition would be tested it would have to be done for all four labels. This study is not
necessarily the best tool to do this. The Commission will have to assess the transition
in its impact assessment and will have to assess it separately from the current study.
−
For label 3 it is necessary to make it as good as possible. With a few exceptions the
inclusion of the benchmark marker is not supported. Other suggestions were to put the
exact number of the class on the arrow, to change the colour of the arrow, to remove
the grey bars at the bottom and to add a top class of zero. There is a need to look from
the graphical perspective whether these can be done.
−
Concerning label 4 it is a question whether to keep this label or not. If it is not kept the
sample size for the other three labels can be increased or something else could be
tested. Testing elements related to costs seems too complex in this study and on-going
73
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0074.png
work in the UK on this can be used. Other options for testing are: label 3 with letters
instead of numbers; per cycle versus per annum; and higher prominence of absolute
energy consumption.
The
German Retail Federation
asked what the grey bars would stand for in a label 3 with
letters instead of numbers. They suggested keeping label 4, but adding grey bars to it.
ECOS
stated that testing a label 3 with letters instead of numbers is appropriate as this
introduces an innovative element to an alphabetic label, whereas so far only innovative
elements were included in numeric labels. Further the methodology should include a question
on efficiency versus consumption.
Belgium
indicated they would like to see label 4 maintained, but grey bars could be added on
top.
Italy
remarked that label 4 should be kept, but with all numbers, e.g. 15 to 1.
The Netherlands
suggested keeping label 4 as it is good to have distinctive options, but they
were not convinced about adding grey bars on top.
CECED
stated that label 4 is a workable one, but it should be displayed as 7 to 1. In addition,
testing transition needs to be kept as an option. CECED would be willing to explore how
resources for this can be made available.
Portugal
argued to keep label 4.
The Ökopol institute
said that the question of testing transition was dismissed too quickly as
there will be some products with the old label and others with the new label. Further, testing
on how to improve communication on the absolute level of energy consumption is important.
Italy
pointed out that on transition periods the impact assessment would need to say
something substantial. There was a quick exercise in 2009 to test transition.
7.
Wrap up by European Commission, DG Energy
The Chair
concluded that there seemed more support for label 4 than for the new suggestion
of label 3 with letters instead of numbers. Therefore, the labels to be tested would be changed
as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A+++ to D label (instead of A++++ to C)
unchanged (A-G as proposed)
will remain numeric, but revised on the basis of a number of suggestions made
will be made more attractive, but not be 7-1.
Separately from the study, the Commission will investigate the issue of transition. Any
contributions in the forms of studies from stakeholders would be welcome, the latest by
August. The Chair thanked all participants for their contribution to the discussion.
Annex I to the minutes of 19 February 2014 - presentation by P. Wade
74
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0075.png
75
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0076.png
76
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0077.png
Annex II to the minutes of 19 February 2014 – presentation by Ch. Duke
77
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0078.png
Minutes of the meeting of the Consulation Forum under Article 18 of Directive 2009/125/EC
on energy-related products on "Review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives "
Brussels, 11 June 2014 (14.00 - 18.00)
Participants:
EC participants:
See Annex.
Paul HODSON (Chairman - ENER), Robert NUIJ, Andras TOTH,
Ewout DEURWAARDER (ENER), Marzena ROGALSKA, César
SANTOS GIL, Michael BENNETT (ENTR), Ferenc PEKAR (ENV).
78
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Documents:
The Commission services circulated the evaluation study preparing the
review on 4 June 2014.
1.
W
ELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
The
Chair
welcomed the participants to this meeting of the Consultation Forum, dedicated to
the review of the energy labelling directive and certain aspects of the ecodesign directive. The
Chair introduced the representatives of the Commission present in the room.
2.
A
DOPTION OF THE
A
GENDA
The
Chair
presented the agenda and apologised that the minutes of the previous meeting were
not yet ready for adoption. He asked for any other modifications or suggestions to the agenda.
The agenda was approved without further change.
3.
U
PDATE ON THE REVIEW
D
IRECTIVES
– D
ISCUSSION
OF THE
E
CODESIGN
AND
E
NERGY
L
ABELLING
The Chair explained that a review of the energy labelling directive is required by the end of
2014, and that it also includes a review of aspects of the ecodesign directive that could not be
assessed during the 2012 review of that Directive. The evaluation study had been running
since May 2013, accompanied by a public consultation from August to November 2013 and a
stakeholder meeting on the first findings and recommendations report in February 2014. The
final report of the study was published on 4 June 2014. The purpose of the meeting today is to
discuss issues that were identified in the study and that the Commission services consider as
particularly relevant for the development of the review package.
The Chair recalled that the review is taking place outside the familiar context in which the
Consultation Forum works (implementing measures and delegated acts under two directives).
The Commission's proposal for a review package will be discussed by Council and Parliament
in ordinary legislative procedure, meaning that the Commission will not share drafts or
conduct further consultations with stakeholders before the formal adoption of the proposal, at
the earliest at the end of the year.
The
Commission services
started a debate with the meeting participants, based on a
presentation formulating the main problems identified in the study.
Problem 1 - Long rulemaking process
1. How can we ensure that the availability of standards and certain steps of the adoption
process do not delay the measures and their implementation?
IT: we cannot force European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) to work faster, although
delays can be frustrating - also to the ESOs themselves. Slowness is sometimes caused by real
difficulties. The solution has already been found in transitional methods of measurement.
BE: we should simplify standards to focus on energy measurements; they also make it too
difficult for Member States (MS) to carry out surveillance.
79
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Orgalime: timely mandates to ESOs and constant exchange during standard development
could speed up processes.
EEB: develop standard already when studying user patterns.
2. Should mandatory product registration be introduced in order to ensure the
availability of sufficient and up-to-date data for rulemaking? (See also point 7)
BE: in favour of mandatory database, good for both recyclers and market surveillance.
Consumers could have access to certain parts, as well as companies who could offer services
to consumers. However, the database should be considered only as a means of assistance to
market surveillance, rather than market surveillance
per se.
DG ENTR: such a product database would have to be developed in cooperation with the
internal market directorate in DG ENTR. A separate informal meeting with stakeholders
might be organised. ANEC welcomes the suggestion, propose to bring an expert who set up a
multilingual database in a third country.
UK: a different database is needed for rule-making than for market surveillance.
DE: it would be helpful, but only publicly available data should go in it, otherwise access
problems will prevent large scale implementation. There should be no trade secrets in the
database. There could be problems ensuring upload by solely the appropriate actors. Energy
efficiency information can be made public. However, neither the associated detailed technical
information on the technology, nor the information regarding quantities placed on the market
should be made publicly available.
Digital Europe: several databases exist or are in development: Energy Star database, ICSMS,
Ecopliant and one developed by Sogeti for the Commission, so would it be necessary to
provide all these databases with information? The Commission responded that the Energy
Star database serves a specific purpose and that the project executed by Sogeti is more to find
out how data could be collected and maintained. The objective is not that industry would have
to fill in multiple databases.
Orgalime: against product registration, because of confidentiality and intellectual property
risks.
AT: the only way to increase surveillance is to decrease costs. A product database would
reduce the cost of the first step, i.e., the documentary check of Regulation 765/2008.
SK: supports database. Industry wants to self-regulate but does not want to provide data, but
we need data to see if e.g. voluntary agreements (VAs) are ambitious enough.
IT: if US/AUS style database (products to be registered when placed on the market), then
technical documentation would have to be submitted, which contains sensitive information. If
it is a public database, it should be different, in 24 languages, which brings additional
difficulty compared to other markets. The Consultation Forum should discuss the database
separately.
DK: database can save MS time; without it, they have to chase technical documentation,
industry rarely respects 10-day deadline. A lot of time of market surveillance authorities is
wasted on obtaining technical documentation from industry. Sometimes Danish authorities
80
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
have to ask five times for it, meaning 50 days of waiting for the technical documentation
instead of 10.
CECED: industry delivers data for preparatory studies. Products should be physically tested,
market surveillance should get more budget, and the answer to surveillance problems should
not be that additional burdens are imposed on manufacturers, which may not deliver expected
results. Risks: who will compile registered data? What happens if free-riders do not register
their products at all?
Lighting Europe: if products do not correspond to technical documentation, how can it be
systematically identified? SMEs will have to implement it. There could be a large burden
placed on industry for having a database, which we do not yet know if MS will be able to
successfully use.
ECOS: modern IT systems can solve access problems. Public part is needed. Product
information is difficult to collect today, standard format and platform for reporting is needed.
European Aluminium Association: database should be optional, cost for SMEs should be
considered, and it should cover several regulations. It cannot be the only way for market
surveillance. EAA is in favour of tighter market surveillance.
AT: reminds that doing only documentary checks is allowed by Art 19 of 765/2008.
Chair: The market surveillance package is going through legislative process now.
Clarification: CECED did not ask to ignore the law regarding document checks; rather, they
insisted on physical tests in addition.
BE: documentary checks were sufficient under 92/75/EEC, and they are the starting point. But
doing them on the basis of the database is not OK. The database should be used only when
dubious products are found on the market. There is already a database in BE of heating
products which includes declarations of conformity. If products are found that are not in the
database, producers are contacted. Unambiguous model identifiers can solve problems related
to registration not corresponding to products on the market.
Problem 2 - Level of ambition
3. Should requirements aim at another level than Least Life Cycle Cost to increase their
stringency?
IT: higher ambition leads to political problems, consensus is better, less ambition does not
mean less success, we need to be closer to people.
EPEE, Orgalime, CECED: target values are averages, if we go for Break Even Point, in 50%
of the cases there would be no return on investment over the lifetime, which cannot be
accepted.
NL: Least Life Cycle Cost
(LLCC)
methodology could be improved by dynamic pricing,
resulting in more stringent measures (BE: agree). Price / efficiency relation does not exist for
e.g. electronic products, where some other methodology is needed to determine the level of
requirements.
European Aluminium Association: LLCC is not possible for all products. Windows can be
upgraded after installation by replacing glazing only.
81
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Orgalime: it is of common interest to maintain the credibility of the instrument, and to keep
key stakeholders aligned. Industry sectors have invested heavily. Criteria in the Directive such
as significant potential for improvement should be respected.
DK: supports equal life cycle costs.
CECED: Long term targets and learning curves imply many assumptions on how the market
will behave, they are very risky.
ECOS: LLCC has not been applied yet, because by the time adopted regulations started to
apply, levels were already obsolete. At least the accuracy of the LLCC calculation should be
improved. Product database would be helpful to see where market stands.
EEB: we cannot go too quickly, but we should go beyond least life-cycle costs, because we
are not even reaching it currently.
4. Is there a need to stop prioritising voluntary agreements (over legislation) when they
are available?
NL: voluntary agreements (VAs) are not a priority question; the criteria are so complex that
only a few of them have been endorsed.
IT: in favour of having VAs as an alternative to the Commission deciding in the form of
regulations. Orgalime supports: some implementing measures were even preceded by VAs.
DK: VAs are worth only if there are clear deadlines and ambition levels. The effects have
been meagre so far, while development has been resource-intensive.
BE: we should carry on with caution. Priority-setting in VAs should not be steered by
industry. VA market surveillance cannot be done by industry, as it would be contrary to new
approach. For sectors with small numbers of products, VAs could be appropriate. Whether to
opt for VAs versus Ecodesign energy efficiency mandatory requirements regarding new
products could be judged on LLCC, on the basis of cost per kWh of energy saved, comparing
it against the cost of upgrading the electricity grid.
ANEC/BEUC: VAs so far have proven to be neither faster nor less costly. Therefore,the two
existing VAs do not fulfil the criteria in the Directive. Take also for example the proposal for
a VA on game console proposal, which goes back to 2012 and still there is little progress.
VAs should have surveillance and sanctions. Guidelines on VAs have to be finalized before
any VA is endorsed or revised.
Chair: reminds that the question is not about stopping VAs, but whether we should continue
prioritising them. ECOS: NGOs have strong reservations about VAs. What would it mean to
stop prioritising VAs? There would not be a possibility to have a VA if Commission starts
drafting legislation? Chair: With regard to the above, it depends on if, and how, we
reformulate the text.
UK: In general we prefer self-regulation over regulation.
CECIMO: difficulties with the machine tools VA were caused by the fact that it is a complex
product group. They had stated before that data was missing, and the consultant BIOIS came
to the same conclusion.
82
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
SK: support VAs. For machine tools, the last 10 years should have been sufficient to gather
the missing data.
Problem 3 - Weak enforcement
5. Should an EU market surveillance authority be set up, or should we have
requirements on the minimum level of surveillance?
AT: Regarding considerations of whether present levels of market surveillance are “weak”,
this term is relative. There is no discussion in the Ecofys report about what would be a
realistic objective for surveillance. 100% is unrealistic. The reasons of perceived low
surveillance levels are not analysed in the report, except for lack of resources. The cost
imposed by EU legislation determines the way products are checked, but the study also failed
to examine that issue. IT agrees; if the Commission thinks it can do better, then Italy wishes it
good luck. The infringement procedures concerning lack of market surveillance are one more
example of the
dirigiste
approach from “Brussels” that is presently being criticised.
NL, SK, EAA: in favour of an EU market surveillance authority, which could tackle existing
interpretation problems across MS concerning products that can circulate freely around the
EU. SK: calls for more information on an EU authority, yearly budget, will it be parallel to
MS surveillance? Chair: The study and the current consultation will be followed by the
drafting of an impact assessment, which will highlight the topics discussed today. But the
details of any potential EU surveillance authority will have to be developed later.
NL: The Ecopliant workshop yesterday has shown that no single MS can perform effective
surveillance for ecodesign and energy labelling. In any case, more thinking is needed on how
to cooperate and specialise in surveillance (EPEE agree).
UK, FR, BE: there could be better coordination and information sharing, playing on the
respective strengths of the various surveillance authorities. There is not much we can do in
addition to current efforts (like coordination in ADCO) without infringing the subsidiarity
principle. BE: We cannot define what minimum level of surveillance means. Instead, EU
funding could be better oriented, there is less of a problem with products that are targeted by
both labelling and ecodesign, as manufacturers will want to get rid of bad products anyway.
For other appliances covered by only ecodesign, e.g. those that have to be tested on-site
(transformers, large space heaters), targeted support for improving surveillance could make
sense.
DK: EU authority would require such a change of competences that it is unrealistic in the
current political context (EPEE agrees). Instead, an agency would make sense with an
objective to help national surveillance with pan-European perspective.
SE: it should not be called an “authority”, but there is an increased role for the Commission:
enhancing cooperation, formal technical support and information on companies. Nordic
cooperation quoted as an example. Commission should set up an online ecodesign platform
where everything is available together (prep studies, guidelines etc.). In order to determine a
minimum level of surveillance, we would have to know what the metrics are (EPEE agrees).
ANEC: No one MS can possibly cover all the requirements with surveillance, so coordination
is needed. A more legislative solution might be helpful, preventing complicated products from
self-declaring, imposing different conformity rules on them, requiring more documentation,
assistance from Notified Bodies and quality control.
83
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Orgalime: there is room for more coordination, better use of ICSMS. There might not be an
Ecodesign-specific solution to the general problems of market surveillance.
6. Should we align surveillance provisions between ecodesign, labelling and the market
surveillance framework?
UK, BE, DK, NL, FR, SE: agree. BE sees even possible combination with surveillance under
the Low Voltage Directive. NL questions how this objective can be achieved, perhaps through
a merger of the directives? FR claims that it is doing this alignment already.
EAA: manufacturers need a single framework under which to comply with EU requirements.
7. Should mandatory product registration be introduced in order to ensure the
availability of sufficient and up-to-date data for surveillance? (NB See also comments
previously made re. the product registration database in Point 2.)
EEB: product database helpful for better enforcement, also good for up-to-date requirements.
SE: ICSMS should be the compliance database. Mandatory registration may have high costs,
feasibility study is needed: using it with other policy areas, which product groups are suitable,
who should maintain it.
EAA: highlights that SMEs would then need to invest more resources; this financial impact
should be quantified, as part of overall considerations regarding the use of mandatory
registration.
Problem 4 - Non-energy environmental impacts
8. Should the MEErP be further revised to better capture non-energy environmental
impacts?
EEB: as long as there is no trade-off with energy efficiency, we should not shy away from
resource efficiency requirements. It would not add too much further delay to adoption
processes. This is particularly relevant for the revision of existing measures.
IT: Before deciding to further revise MEErP, we should ask ourselves what the important
requirements are, and only those should be written into legislation. Market surveillance has
proved that sometimes odd requirements end up in legislation.
BE, DE. DE: it is a major weak point that the labelling directive does not specify what should
be assessed when preparing legislation, and unfortunately the Ecofys report is silent about
this. The mandate to ESOs on material efficiency is well appreciated (BE agrees). It will be
interesting to see if the material efficiency tool under MEErP will be successfully
implemented.
NL: Point 8 is not a priority issue. MEErP is not perfect, but has already pointed to non-
energy impacts. The question today is more regarding firstly, how might such impacts be
regulated? And secondly, how would rules be enforced?
SE: Supports enhanced treatment of resource efficiency (in particular, repairability), but better
coordination is needed between MS bodies covering different aspects (example: solid fuel
boilers). It should also be explored how ecodesign/labelling can be used to enhance the
implementation of other directives, e.g. REACH or legislation on hazardous substances. The
84
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
real gap is that information on substances does not get from the producer to the end-of-life
phase. Ecodesign could require that such information is gathered and communicated. While
this might already be possible, the text of the directive could be complemented so that it is not
forgotten in implementation. BE: agree with principle but it has to be cost-effective. Recycled
products may be in breach of REACH, as they cannot provide full information on material
content. This conflict would have to be resolved.
KREAB representing Emerson: in order to better exploit the existing potential, we should
make use of the whole ecological profile in order to drive design, i.e., not solely energy
efficiency, but also resource efficiency. As there is a lack of guidance/methods on such
profiles, Emerson is prepared to work on a targeted EU methodology or standard.
9. Should the scope of the Directives be extended to cover non-energy-related products
(non-ErPs)?
EEB, ANEC/BEUC: We could extend scope without starting to work on products such as T-
shirts right away. If there is an
a priori
exclusion, we lose the benefit of anticipatory effect on
industry. EEB: re-launching the review later to extend the scope would be a waste of money.
Extended framework directive could even specify that e.g. the next two working plans will
only cover ErPs.
IT, FR, SE, EAA: it is premature to extend to all products, we have not yet explored all
possibilities under current scope, and we may lose out on energy efficiency in the process. SE:
Does not want to exclude the possibility of extending the scope, but suggests to focus on the
further possibilities that exist under the current scope, including on systems, other aspects
than energy, harmonised building labelling.
UK: We should not divert efforts; we should focus on existing mandate. Methodologies are
missing to support a scope extension.
BE: premature to extend, especially for labelling, too many problems even within current
framework.
BE: DG ENV is working on Product Environmental Footprint (PEFp); the methodology to
cover non-ErPs might be there for next revision. PEFp types of requirements are more
suitable for these products than requirements on specific aspects. Extended producer
responsibility such as for example a service based business model, inherently guaranteeing
efficient use of resources and materials, could be a ground to be exempted from specific
durability criteria.
DK: the previous extension (to non-energy related products) has not yet resulted in
experience. In the current implementation, ecodesign should take more account of resource
efficiency.
NL: Energy labelling is by definition restricted to energy. Under ecodesign, we cannot escape
from a scope extension at one point. It is true we need vision, but we also need measurement
methods and realistic enforcement (EPEE agrees). We do not need to wait for an extension;
we can already practice covering other environmental aspects via the current scope.
EPEE: scope extension would put large additional burdens on industry. Scope extension also
needs to be considered with regard to subsequent enforceability of mandatory requirements
(CECED agrees.)
85
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
Orgalime: apart from enforceability issues, there are more question marks relating to other
environmental aspects. For example, where is the significant environmental improvement
related to dismantlability? Modern trends in the recycling industry lead to a future where
dismantling a product might not be necessary any more. Products containing recycled
materials tend to have quality issues.
CECED: industry already considers the reduction of material use in production as an
opportunity. It happens anyway, rules would also be difficult to control, and presently there
are no reproducible measurement methods. It could perhaps be the subject of some horizontal
measure beyond ecodesign.
Problem 5 - Effectiveness of the energy label
The Commission services explained that they would not like to reopen the February
discussion about the choice of labels to be tested. The consumer tests started at the end of
May in FR, CZ, PT and SI (in the latter two, in place of the originally planned UK and BE).
First results should be available in August, and the report will be made public.
10. Should the label scale layout be changed to tackle the issue of re-scaling?
BE, SE, DK, DE, ANEC/BEUC agree.
DK: we should be aware of rescaling need when the lowest available class is A+ as with cold
appliances.
SE: the resilience of the label to changes over time should be tested.
European Heating Industry (EHI): the impact of the transition period should be assessed if
rescaling is implemented.
11. Should absolute consumption be more emphasised in the label?
DK, UK, AT, NL, BE, DE, CECED: support emphasis on absolute consumption.
UK, SE: questions 11 and 13 should be considered together. BE: if either 11 or 13 is
implemented, the other is not necessary.
NL: Framework directive could provide guidance on when to target absolute consumption in
the regulations.
IT: It should be case by case, the functionality of the product should be considered. Consumer
could select products that consumes less energy but do not fulfil the expected functionality. In
future, revision or not, we should have a better analysis of consumer behaviour and real use of
the product.
EAA: strongly against, the question makes sense for energy-using products only, not for ErPs,
which do not consume themselves. The consumption totally depends on how the product is
operated. SE: information should be provided on the impact of the product on energy use.
EEB: in favour of a case by case approach. If we address it in energy labelling, it should also
be addressed in ecodesign.
86
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
EPEE: energy label methodology was developed for plug and play products. For more
complex products, another approach is needed; large appliances are not necessarily bad.
ANEC/BEUC: it is a very useful feature in the label, but there are some issues with how it is
indicated and how the consumers interpret it. What is better, yearly consumption or per cycle?
“Annum” is not understood everywhere in the EU.
12. Should monetised information on life cycle costs be provided with the label or in the
price tag?
UK: shop trials in the UK are still in process, initial results show some promise, but not
uniformly across products. In any case, it should not be placed on the label itself; consumers
do not get the notion that more efficient products can still consume more than less efficient
ones. There should be clarity whether retailers are allowed to provide monetised information
on their own initiative.
AT, NL, CECED: it may be counterproductive, since difference between highest classes may
not lead to much money saving.
NL: Life Cycle Costs on an EU label do not make much sense – such considerations would
have to be delegated to regional level. The scope of the energy label does not extend to the
price tag, which is covered by other EU legislation.
BE: it does not make sense in the energy label itself; BE thinks that
elsewhere could be investigated.
implementation
IT, DE: monetised information would be impossible in practice, as energy mixes differ
locally/nationally. IT: the cost may not reflect the quality of the energy consumed. DE: price
information would become obsolete quickly.
DK: research shows that the label works because the message is clear, it would be a mistake
to insert an extra parameter on it. The price information would be contradictory to the
principle of the internal market.
SE: agree with the MS views above.
EAA: against - the idea does not make sense for ErPs.
EEB: in favour of providing LCC information to consumers. If it differs across the EU, QR
codes could be used to give access to local information. If there is a normalised approach,
EU-wide indication is possible.
CECED, NO: price indication in the label could be confusing.
13. Should the formula determining the class be changed to stop favouring large
appliances?
IT: We have to carefully weigh pros and cons. What is better, consumer purchasing two
smaller products or one larger? There might be other ways of discouraging from buying larger
products.
EEB: even if label favours products with lower consumption, consumers are not forced to buy
them. This is an issue only for ecodesign.
87
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
DK, SE: agree. DK: it is more complicated when different technologies are in the same group.
SE: it should be logarithmic formula, based on use patterns.
EAA, CECED: disagree. EAA: A larger product does not always consume more energy.
Depending on the context, with a large window, solar gains may be higher than heat losses.
ANEC/BEUC: the size of households is declining, so is there indeed a need for larger
appliances?
Other questions
NO: Primary Energy Factor (PEFa) problem was not mentioned today. In the 2012 review,
the consultant recommended a forum for discussion on this issue. In the current study, Ecofys
recommended a more thorough review. Suggests dedicated formal meeting on the matter. CZ,
BE agree. IT: absolute consumption solves the PEFa issue, as it would have to be indicated in
secondary consumption on the label. Ecodesign also needs to be based on that, we need to
keep the two pieces of legislation aligned, including the levels of the requirements.
SE: it is written in the space heater regulations that these factors have to be reviewed. Agree
with NO; however, the question is relevant only for energy labelling. For ecodesign, tapping
into the energy efficiency potential is still the key aspect. It could be considered to align the
PEFa with the Renewable Energy Sources Directive.
Chair: we will consider whether or not to hold a meeting. Ecodesign is an internal market
directive, whereas the PEFa is set in the Energy Efficiency Directive. The latter would be the
place to discuss any changes to the PEFa value.
EPEE: The Ecofys study underlined need for policy coherence; this is relevant for products
having different sets of requirements under ecodesign and under other policies. There should
be a cost-benefit analysis of making changes to the LLCC approach.
IT: Can we go on having two legal procedures for adopting measures (delegated acts and
implementing measures)? Chair: if we propose changes to the Ecodesign directive, then it will
presumably have to be updated to the delegated acts procedure, as has already been the case
with the Energy Labelling Directive.
BE: asks the Commission to take account of the wish from several MS to check whether the
Energy Labelling Directive can be “de-Lisbonised”, in order to use implementing acts instead
of delegated ones. AT: supports BE and reminds that Treaty Article 230 requires that it should
be precisely defined what is delegated. Current scope of delegation is too large. Perhaps we
should consider returning to co-decision.
4.
AOB
The Commission services gave an update on planned next steps with different measures in the
adoption procedure.
UK: What is the status of measures on ventilation products? Chair: the draft energy labelling
regulation is waiting for approval to start the adoption process, and the ecodesign measure is
in turn waiting for the energy labelling regulation.
88
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0089.png
NL: What is the status of the study on smart appliances? CECED: Are the consultants
chosen?
Chair: we will try to ensure that the smart appliances study can start as soon as possible.
Annex II to the minutes of 11 June 2014 – Attendence list
Member States
AT
BE
BE
BE
BE
BG
CZ
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DK
FI
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
IT
LU
LV
LV
LV
NL
NL
NO
NO
SE
SI
SK
UK
UK
Name
LUDWAR
SOENEN
VERCKENS
CREVECOEUR
SCHORPION
BONTCHEV
HYKSA
AKKERMAN
BERGER
HINSCH
KÜPER
OEHME
NIELSEN
WIIK
HAKKARAINEN
BISSON
KARCZA FUNTEKNE
SWEENEY
BASILIO
PRESUTTO
BRAUN
APSITE
KAULINŠ
MATULIS
SIDERIUS
VAN DAM
FAGERLUND
TONSBERG
LOPES
BELAVIC BENEDIK
TOPOLSKY
RIMMER
WALKER
Gerhard
Bram
Bram
Guibert
Hannelore
Bontcho
Vlastimil
Floris
Jan
Thomas
Arne
Ines
Peter
Carina
Niina
Evelyne
Beata
Mark
Emanuele
Milena
Ricarda
Inga
Dzintars
Dainis
Hans-Paul
Paul
Kirsti Hind
Marianne
Norman
Carlos
Andreja
Erik
Edward Michael
Mike
89
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0090.png
Organisation
AEGPL
ANEC
ANEC/BEUC
CECED
CECED
CECED/ VORWERK
CECED/ VORWERK
CECIMO
CEN/CENELEC
CEN/CENELEC/ EVA
COGEN EUROPE
DIGITAL EUROPE
DIGITAL EUROPE / CISCO
DIGITAL EUROPE / DELL
DIGITAL EUROPE / HP
DIGITAL EUROPE / INTEL
DIGITAL EUROPE / PANASONIC
DIGITAL EUROPE / SAMSUNG
DIGITAL EUROPE / SHARP
EAA
ECOFYS
ECOS
ECOS
EEB
EEB
EFCEM
EHI
EPEE
EPEE/ DAIKIN
EPEE/ DAIKIN
EPEE/ EVIA
EPTA
eu.bac
EUROCOMMERCE
EUROVENT
Glass for Europe
MAUBANC
EVANS
MALIZOU
RAMBALDI
RICHAUD
SCHIANSKY
CHALANÇON
SLUPEK
GINDROZ
IRVINE
TUDOROIU
FEINDT
VERSCHUERE
MORIARTY
ORD
GIBSON
DUBRAY
RANA
GROEBLER
VATAVALIS
MOLENBROEK
SPENGLER
TOULOUSE
ARDITI
WACHHOLZ
WARREN
RATEAU
VOIGT
BEELAERTS
OKI
BONVILLAIN
SCUDERI
MELCHIOR
DAVIDSON
VAN EYKEN
OGGIANU
Samuel
Chris
Angeliki
Matteo
Candice
Jethro
Pierre
Kamila
Bernard
David
Alexandra
Silvie
Klaus
Tom
Jason
Peter
Marie-Helene
Sandeep
Thomas
Pavlos
Edith
Laura
Edouard
Stephane
Carsten
Keith
Fanny
Andrea
Veerle
Takahiro
Denis
Francesco
Frederic
Christel
Felix
Luca
90
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0091.png
KREAB consultant for EMERSON
Lighting Europe
Lighting Europe
Lighting Europe
Lighting Europe/ OSRAM
OEKO INSTITUT
ORGALIME
ORGALIME
ORGALIME / ZVEI
RREUSE
UEAPME
GORKEM
PAGANO
TIRONI
BRIATORE
FRANZ
FISCHER
LINHER
KOCH
ELFERS
RIEDER
LENA
Marie
Fabio
Fabrizio
Chiara
Otmar
Corinna
Sigrid
Lars
Christine
Daphne
Guido
91
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
A
NNEX
2 – D
ETAILED PRESENTATION OF THE
E
CODESIGN
D
IRECTIVE AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
AND
E
NERGY
L
ABELLING
This Annex sets out the background to the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives,
summarises the process for developing implementing measures and the role of the different
institutions, presents what has been achieved and describes the next steps in their
implementation.
S
UMMARY
The Ecodesign Directive, adopted in 2005 and extended from energy-using to energy-related
products in 2009, allows the Commission to prohibit the sale in the EU market of those
models of energy-related products with the highest environmental impacts. Every three years
an ecodesign working plan identifies the products to be studied in detail. After a preparatory
study a product specific regulation is drafted detailing the EU-harmonised ecodesign criteria
for that product group, which is adopted following the implementing act procedure. To date
24 ecodesign implementing regulations have been put in place, some of which have been
subsequently updated through amendment, and two ecodesign voluntary agreements are in
place. Products covered range from household products, such as fridges, lamps and boilers, to
professional and industrial products, such as electric motors and fans. Further products groups
are under study for potential regulation.
The Energy Labelling Directive, revised in 2010, allows the Commission to require energy
labels to be displayed on energy-related products at point of sale. The label shows which
energy class a product achieves, and this encourages the sale of more energy efficient and
environmentally friendly models through the provision of comparable information on energy
efficiency and consumption of key resources. After a preparatory study a product specific
regulation is drafted detailing the energy label for that product group, which is adopted
following the delegated act procedure. 13 delegated regulations now ensure that a range of
products, all of which are also subject to Ecodesign regulations, must be sold with an EU
energy label attached. All these measures were amended in 2014 so that the energy label will
also be shown when selling the product via the internet.
The related Tyre Labelling Regulation is separate from the Energy Labelling Directive
framework, but addresses the same issue for the specific sector of tyres. Its review is foreseen
for March 2016, although the present review may have an impact on this regulation, because
of its similarity to the Energy Labelling Directive's delegated regulations.
Ensuring compliance by manufacturers and retailers with the legislation is the responsibility
of Member States through market surveillance (see Annex 3 for further information). To
ensure a common interpretation in enforcing the requirements and to organise market
surveillance efficiently across the EU, Member States' market surveillance authorities
exchange information through Administrative Cooperation groups (ADCO). Furthermore, the
Market Surveillance Regulation provides the framework for Members States to organise their
market surveillance. The regulation specifies that its provisions apply to all Union
harmonisation legislation on products, insofar as there are no specific provisions with the
same objective in that legislation. The latter is at present the case for Articles 3(2)-(4) and
Article 7 of the Ecodesign Directive and Article 3(2)-(4) of the Energy Labelling Directive.
These articles take precedence over similar provisions in the market surveillance regulation.
92
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0093.png
To further improve Member States' market surveillance the Commission proposed a new
market surveillance regulation for products in February 2013
168
.
B
ACKGROUND ENERGY LABELLING AND ECODESIGN
Energy labelling
The second oil crisis in the early '80s led the Council in 1986 to set an objective to improve
energy efficiency by 20% by 1995. The Gulf Crisis of 1990 reinforced doubts about the
security of oil supplies. Furthermore, the Energy/Environment Council of 1990 set the
objective to maintain CO
2
emissions at 1990 levels. While energy consumption in industry
remained stable in the '80s, residential and transport consumption rose substantially. In this
context, and in an effort to preserve the single market from fragmentation by similar national
initiatives introduced at the time, a Community-wide energy labelling scheme (Council
Directive 92/75/EC) was established, using the A-G scale with coloured arrows for the first
time. The directive was supplemented by further, "implementing" Directives on household
washing machines, washer-dryers, lamps, cold appliances, electric ovens and air-conditioners
during the period 1995-2002.
In 2010, the Energy Labelling Directive 92/75/EC was replaced by Directive 2010/30/EU. Its
main features were the introduction of A+, A++, and A+++ classes on top of the A-G scale,
an almost language-free label used across the whole internal market, and distance and internet
sales added into the scope. Previously existing labels have since been updated, and new
labelling measures have been created for a number of additional product groups.
Ecodesign
In the course of the 1990's Council directives were adopted setting minimum energy
efficiency requirements for boilers (1992), refrigerators and freezers (1996) and fluorescent
lamp ballasts (2000). These aimed at avoiding the fragmentation of the internal market
(Member States had initially introduced or expressed the desire to introduce national
requirements) and at ensuring that the increased circulation of products on the internal market
did not result in a proliferation of cheaper, low-efficiency appliances.
To set a framework for future work, in 2003 the Commission then proposed the Ecodesign of
Energy-Using Products Directive (adopted in July 2005). The directive allowed for product
specific implementing measures adopted in comitology, containing minimum requirements
that would remove the worst performing products from the market. The rationale behind this
approach was to allow for fast progress in highly technical matters, while maintaining legal
soundness and cooperation among the institutions of the EU.
The Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives complement each other, as the former
promotes the best products (exercising a "pull" towards more energy efficiency), while the
latter removes the worst from the market ("push" effect).
In 2009, the Ecodesign Directive's scope was extended to cover also energy-related products,
i.e. products that do not use energy themselves but have an influence on other products'
energy use, such as building controls or thermal insulation.
168
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/psmsp/index_en.htm
93
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0094.png
P
ROCESS AND ROLE OF THE
I
NSTITUTIONS
Both the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives are framework directives. They require
the Commission to come forward with implementing regulations laying down product-
specific requirements, and set the conditions these regulations must meet. In turn, the
regulations must be approved or not objected to by the European Parliament and Council. The
below figure gives an overview of the legislative process.
The process starts with establishing the priorities for Union action. Priority product groups are
selected based on their potential for cost-effective reduction of energy consumption and
following a transparent process culminating in working plans that outline the priorities.
A first list of priority product groups was provided in the Ecodesign Directive itself
(2005/32/EC, Article 16). Subsequently, the first formal working plan (for 2009-2011) and the
second (for 2012-2014) were adopted by the Commission
169
after consultation of the
Ecodesign Consultation Forum (composed of Member State and stakeholder experts).
169
The 1
st
Working Plan was a Commission Report addressed to the EP and Council, the 2
nd
Working Plan
- on advice of SG - was a Staff Working Document.
94
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0095.png
The products listed in the two plans (1
st
working plan: 1-10; 2
nd
working plan: 11-18) are the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Air-conditioning and ventilation systems
(commercial and industrial)
Electric and fossil-fuelled heating
equipment
Food preparing equipment (including
coffee machines)
Industrial and laboratory furnaces and
ovens
Machine tools
Network, data processing and data storing
equipment
Refrigerating and freezing (professional)
11. Window products
12. Steam boilers ( < 50MW)
13. Power cables
14. Enterprises' servers, data storage and
ancillary equipment
15. Smart appliances/meters
16. Lighting systems
17. Wine storage appliances (c.f. Ecodesign
regulation 643/2009)
18. Water-related products
Sound and imaging equipment (incl. game
consoles)
9. Transformers
10. Water-using equipment
There were also a number of conditional products in the 2
nd
Working Plan that the
Commission committed to study closer before deciding to launch full preparatory work (such
as thermal insulation, power generating equipment).
Once the product group has been selected, a preparatory study is undertaken by an
independent consultant, involving extensive technical discussions with interested
stakeholders.
Next, the Commission's first drafts of ecodesign and energy labelling measures are submitted
for discussion to the Consultation Forum, consisting of Member States' and other
stakeholders' representatives. The Parliament, Member States and stakeholders are kept
informed (by receiving copies of the evolving texts of the draft regulations) at each stage from
there onwards.
After the Consultation Forum, the Commission drafts an impact assessment, which after
approval of the IAB is taken forward to inter-service consultation together with draft
implementing measures.
The next step is WTO notification. Following that, the two procedures follow different paths.
The draft energy labelling delegated act is discussed in a Member State Expert Group where
opinion(s) are expressed and consensus is sought but no vote is taken. The draft ecodesign
measure is submitted for vote to the Regulatory Committee of Member State experts. Next,
the Commission adopts the delegated act for energy labelling.
After this the European Parliament and Council have the right of scrutiny for each measure
for which a period of three or four months is foreseen. Within this time the co-legislators can
block the adoption process by the Commission. Parliament committees sometimes discuss
proposals to object to measures (light bulbs and fridges in 2009) or go one step further and
95
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0096.png
vote on such a proposal (vacuum cleaners and water heaters in 2013
170
). On one occasion an
objection was even adopted in plenary, blocking the measure for televisions in 2009
171
.
V
OLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
The Directive sets out in its Annex VIII in addition to the basic legal requirements indicative
criteria for assessing whether proposed self-regulatory initiatives can be considered as an
alternative to an implementing measure. The industry which submits a self-regulatory
proposal in view of it being officially recognised by the Commission is expected to provide
sufficient technical background to enable the Commission and the members of the
Consultation Forum to assess the proposal, notably in terms of the added value as compared
with business-as-usual.
The Commission assesses each self-regulatory initiative on a case by case basis after
consulting the members of the Consultation Forum and taking into account the findings of the
technical/economic preparatory study if available. The basis for the assessment whether a
proposal goes beyond business-as-usual is the information provided by the industry and
affected parties and, if available, the findings of the preparatory study. Voluntary agreements
are expected to include quantified and staged objectives, starting from a well-defined baseline
and measured through verifiable indicators. Voluntary agreements also need arrangements for
independent verification as they are not necessarily subject to market surveillance by Member
States.
The Commission is in the process of developing guidelines for voluntary agreements. The
Consultation Forum endorsed on 12 June 2014 an approach that voluntary agreements should
cover at least 80% of the market share of a product category and that at least 90% of all
product models of each signatory of the voluntary agreement comply with its requirements
172
.
E
XISTING ECODESIGN
,
ENERGY LABELLING AND TYRE LABELLING LEGISLATION
Framework legislation
•
2009/125/EC
•
2010/30/EU
•
1222/2009/EC
Ecodesign Framework Directive
Energy labelling Framework Directive
Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other
essential parameters
24 Ecodesign implementing regulations
•
1275/2008
•
107/2009
•
244/2009
170
171
Electric power consumption standby and off mode
Simple set-top boxes
Non-directional household lamps (+amending regulation 859/2009)
172
The vacuum cleaner objection was defeated in the ENVI committee by 43 votes against and 4 in favour.
The water heater objection was defeated in the ENVI committee by 51 votes against and 1 in favour.
The motivation of the objection was that the EP wanted to delay the discussion of the draft labelling
measure so that it would have to become a delegated act under the recast post-Lisbon Energy Labelling
Directive in 2010. The measure was indeed subsequently adopted as a delegated act
With an incentive to increase this to 100% in which case no sensitive market data has to be submitted to
the independent inspector
96
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
•
245/2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
278/2009
640/2009
641/2009
642/2009
643/2009
1015/2010
1016/2010
327/2011
206/2012
547/2012
932/2012
1194/2012
617/2013
666/2013
801/2013
813/2013
814/2013
66/2014
548/2014
1253/2014
Fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity
discharge lamps and for ballasts and luminaires (+ amending regulation
347/2010)
External power supplies
Electric motors (+ amending regulation 4/2014)
Circulators (+ amending regulation 622/2012)
Televisions
Household refrigerating appliances
Household washing machines
Household dishwashers
Industrial fans
Air conditioning and comfort fans
Water pumps
Household tumble driers
Directional lamps, light emitting diode (LED) lamps and related
equipment
Computers and servers
Vacuum cleaners
Networked standby
Heaters
Water heaters
Domestic cooking appliances
Power transformers
Ventilation units
4 amending Ecodesign implementing regulations
•
859/2009
•
347/2010
•
622/2012
•
4/2014
Ultraviolet radiation of non-directional household lamps (amending
regulation 244/2009/EC)
Fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity
discharge lamps and for ballasts and luminaries (amending regulation
245/2009/EC)
Circulators (amending regulation 641/2009)
Industrial electric motors (amending regulation 640/2009)
3 Voluntary ecodesign agreements (Report to the EP & Council)
•
COM (2012) 684 Complex set top boxes
•
COM (2013) 23 Imaging equipment
•
COM(2015) 178 Game Consoles
13 energy labelling supplementing regulations (of which 1 amending)
•
•
•
•
•
•
1059/2010
1060/2010
1061/2010
1062/2010
626/2011
392/2012
Household dishwashers
Household refrigerating appliances
Household washing machines
Televisions
Air conditioners
Household tumble driers
97
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0098.png
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
874/2012
665/2013
811/2013
812/2013
65/2014
518/2014
1254//2014
Electrical lamps and luminaires
Vacuum cleaners
Heaters
Water heaters
Domestic cooking appliances
Energy labelling on the internet (amending the above regulations)
Residential ventilation units
2 Product-specific Directives still in force
•
•
92/42/EEC
96/60/EC
Hot-water boilers efficiency Council Directive (ED
174
)
Household combined washer-driers (EL
175
)
174
175
ED = Ecodesign requirements
EL = Energy labelling
98
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0099.png
A
NNEX
3 – A
NALYSIS OF MARKET SURVEILLANCE BY MEMBER STATES
The need for market surveillance
Both minimum efficiency requirements, set through ecodesign implementing measures, and
energy labelling require effective market surveillance mechanisms to ensure a level playing
field for businesses and reliable product information for consumers. Such mechanisms must
deal with two different issues:
•
Checking whether products on the market comply with EU requirements on energy
efficiency.. Otherwise, high energy-consuming goods would still be purchased by
consumers, and worse, consumers may pay higher prices for less energy efficiency
products than for higher energy efficiency ones.
Checking that the energy labelling is accurate and in accordance with the EU
requirements, public institutions must check that the label is put on all appliances for
sale. The label must be visible, printed in colour, and properly displayed. The need
for a visible label is clear, as energy labelling can influence consumers' purchase
decisions only if this is the case.
•
Organisation of market surveillance
Member States are required to establish a market surveillance authority for ecodesign and for
energy labelling. In most Member States this is the same authority, although in some this
responsibility is divided. In a number of Member States the authority is also responsible for
market surveillance of other EU harmonisation legislation on products, such as the Low
Voltage Directive
176
. In Germany and Spain the market surveillance competence is devolved
to the regional level and in the UK some of the energy labelling requirements are devolved to
the local level.
Enforcement activities
Data collected since 2012 from Member States show a wide variety in enforcement activities
for the years 2009-2013
177
, including product documentation checks and product testing in
laboratories. In the case of energy labelling, these also include inspection of display of labels
in shops as well as in the case of distance selling (notably through the internet). Some
Member States also inspect requirements for advertisement and promotional material to
include the reference to the energy class. Member States use a range of corrective actions to
deal with non-compliances, including administrative decisions, withdrawal of models,
decisions by customs authorities to reject products at the border, voluntary measures taken by
companies and financial penalties.
Almost all Member States perform product documentation checks and inspection of display of
labels in shops. In certain years, a few Member States did not have any market surveillance
activity. In some cases Member States only acted upon receipt of complaints, while others had
an active programme involving random and/or targeted checks. The Commission has since
early 2013 engaged with Member States that appeared to have no activity to ensure they
176
177
Directive 2006/95/EC
COWI & BIO Intelligence Service, Assessing the data collected in the framework of the Ecodesign and
Labelling annual market surveillance data collection exercise run by the Commission, on-going.
99
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0100.png
started market surveillance activities on ecodesign and energy labelling. This engagement
reduced the number of Member States without activity of 4-6 in the years 2009/2010 to
none
178
in 2013. In general, the combined market surveillance activities of the Member States
increased significantly between 2009 and 2013. This may be due to increased attention to this
topic from the Commission, industry and NGOs, as well as from those market surveillance
authorities already playing an active role. However, it is also necessary since the level of
market surveillance started from a low base and the number of ecodesign and energy labelling
regulations increased during those years.
Almost half of the Member States also perform product testing in laboratories. Although
product testing is only one way to check compliance, it is an essential instrument as it is
ultimately the only way to establish whether a product meets the minimum ecodesign
requirements and/or indicates the correct label class. The number of Member States that
performs product testing is increasing since 2009/2010 when only a few Member States
performed such tests. One reason that not all Member States are testing products in
laboratories is that testing is expensive. This may also be the reason that a large share of tests
reported by Member States are on smaller appliances such as external power supplies and
lamps, and on compliance with standby and off-mode requirements.
Expenditure
No precise figures on total Member States expenditure on market surveillance are available,
since only about half of the Member States share information of available budgets. In 2011
this was estimated at € 7-10 million
179
. Based on (incomplete) data collected from Member
States it is currently likely to be around € 10 million.
Administrative cooperation
Representatives of market surveillance authorities meet twice a year in the context of
Administrative Cooperation ('ADCO') groups on ecodesign and on energy labelling. The
meetings are chaired by a Member State. During 2012-2014 the Netherlands chaired the
ecodesign ADCO group, since then taken over byd the UK who already chaired the energy
labelling ADCO group. Meetings of the two groups are held jointly; in many Member States
responsibility for market surveillance falls in the same authority. Participation in the meetings
has increased since the establishment of the groups; almost all Member States present at the
most recent meeting. In-between meetings market surveillance authorities have several means
to exchange information
180
. Authorities from ten Member States also cooperate in the
Intelligence Energy Europe programme-supported project "Ecopliant"
181
and its successor
"EEpliant"
182
examining and analysing the practices and tools of market surveillance
authorities across the EU in order to identify best practices and produce guidelines and
training seminars.
178
179
180
181
182
One Member State has not yet submitted its report required by Article 3(3) of the Energy Labelling
Directive, but its general market surveillance report submitted in accordance with Article 18(6) of the
Market Surveillance Regulation indicates that it is active in the area of energy labelling.
P. Waide
et al.,
Enforcement of energy efficiency regulations for energy consuming equipment:
findings from a new European study, Proceedings of the 6
th
International Conference EEDAL'11
Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting
E.g. the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance (ICSMS) and dedicated
sections of the Commission's Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations,
Businesses and Citizens (CIRCABC)
http://www.ecopliant.eu/
http://www.prosafe.org/images/Documents/EEPLIANT/EEPPLIANT_Press_release_v2.pdf
100
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0101.png
Level of compliance
The level of compliance found by market surveillance authorities varies widely from Member
State to Member State, from product to product and from year to year.
While sometimes all tested products by an authority in a certain year are found to be compliant
with ecodesign requirements, more typically 10-50% of products inspected and/or tested are
found to be non-compliant, with several higher cases, even up to 90%. In the case of energy
labelling requirements for dealers, non-compliance rates found by authorities are typically
between 5% and 40%, in some cases up to 90%. On average, non-compliance rates found in
market surveillance are about 15-35%. The share of non-compliant products and labels found in
2013 seems
183
about 5-10%-point lower than in most of the years before, but preliminary data
received for the year 2014 does not confirm such downward trend. No particular pattern can be
identified that would suggest that compliance rates are consistently different in different
geographical areas of the EU.
Non-compliance comes in different gradations. For example, a product may not be compliant
with the energy efficiency requirement or other specific ecodesign requirements such as water
consumption. However, non-compliance can also mean that requirements for the booklet of
instructions are not followed. Another form of non-compliance with ecodesign is the absence of
a declaration of conformity. While authorities have not provided details about the type of non-
compliances found, the non-compliance rates found by market surveillance authorities are
probably not representative for the entire market, because authorities often use targeted checks,
including for example
184
:
•
•
•
•
Brands with a history of non-compliance
Brands involved in international complaints
Brands with a high market share
Brands in low price segment of the market
Therefore, the levels of non-compliance found by market surveillance are likely to be
significantly higher than the overall level of non-compliance on the market. Thus, the overall
level of non-compliance of 20% estimated on the basis of the evaluation study is plausible.
183
184
Only for six Member States the reported data allowed to calculate non-compliance rates for all years
(2009-2013) and for both ecodesign and energy labelling. For other Member States there are gaps in the
data. Therefore, statements concerning trends for the EU as a whole need to be expressed with caution.
Best Practice Guidelines, Ecopliant European Ecodesign Compliance Project (draft 19 December 2013)
101
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0102.png
A
NNEX
4 – T
HE
2012
REVIEW OF THE
E
CODESIGN
D
IRECTIVE
The Commission had to review the effectiveness of the Ecodesign Directive and its
implementing measures by 2012. That review identified eight challenges for which the
Commission announced a number of non-legislative actions to improve the application of the
Directive and its implementing measures
185
. The extent to which the actions announced in that
review have already addressed the challenges varies as follows:
•
'Complex and lengthy preparatory procedure': the Commission's report did not
identify a specific action to address this although in fact the time to adopt measures
has reduced by 7 months.
'Limited data to inform policy decisions': in 2013 a three-year contract was signed to
develop a database on energy efficiency and other environmental aspects of energy-
related products placed on the market
186
. However, the collection of data under the
project was limited to six product categories
187
to keep the scope of the study
manageable.
'Insufficient coordination of ecodesign measures with other pieces of EU legislation':
a pilot project was initiated in which the Commission's
Joint Research Centre (JRC)
provides technical support to the policy DGs for a number of products
188
and
investigates the possibilities for a more integrated process of developing product
specific policy measures. The project is on-going and should be finalised in 2015.
'Insufficient resources to deal with the increasing amount of regulatory,
communication and standardisation work': a significant part of non-regulatory work
was delegated to external bodies and experts
189
. As a result, the yearly number of
ecodesign and energy labelling measures published increased to nine in 2013, against
eight in 2012, two in 2011 and seven in 2010 (see Annex 2). In 2014 the number
dropped to seven, but only because adoption and publication of several regulations
encountered a short delay into 2015 due to the change of the Commission.
'Question on the level of ambition of some requirements': the Commission indicated
it would continue reinforcing the use of the expertise of stakeholders. For the
ecodesign regulations adopted in 2013 the evaluation study gives a mixed picture:
the regulation for space heaters is viewed as having the correct ambition level,
whereas the one for computers is seen as clearly too low while others are considered
in-between
190
.
'Remaining potential to further address non-energy-related issues of energy-related
products': the Commission indicated it would continue reinforcing the use of the
expertise of stakeholders. In 2013, durability and dust re-emission requirements were
included in the ecodesign regulation for vacuum cleaners and nitrogen oxide
emission requirements were included in ecodesign regulations for space heaters and
COM(2012) 765 final
http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:52785-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1
Tyres, vacuum cleaners, lighting, air conditioners, computers and electric motors
Showers and taps, commercial refrigeration, professional refrigeration, space heaters and water heaters
EuropeDirect, EASME and New Approach consultants
Ecofys final technical report p.21-22
•
•
•
•
•
185
186
187
188
189
190
102
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0103.png
water heaters. Noise was also addressed for these products. Design requirements for
recycling were included in the voluntary ecodesign agreement for imaging
equipment. Requirements for information provision relevant for disassembly,
recycling and disposal at end-of-life were included in the regulations for space
heaters, water heaters and vacuum cleaners.
•
'Delays in the elaboration of suitable harmonised standards': external experts were
contracted and NGOs were provided with support to allow for their active
involvement. This is likely to result in standards that are better fit for purpose, but the
problem of delay remains.
'Insufficient and ineffective market surveillance': funding opportunities for joint
action on market surveillance between national authorities were provided
191
and the
Commission collected data from Member States on their enforcement activities.
While the data show an overall increase in market surveillance activities over the
years, the level of market surveillance is still relatively low.
•
191
Under the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Work Programme 2013 and Horizon 2020 call for 2014 and
2015
103
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0104.png
A
NNEX
5 – D
ESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
The model used for the impact analysis study is the ecodesign impact accounting model
developed by Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V. (VHK), which incorporates the data from all
preparatory studies and impact assessments done for ecodesign, energy labelling and tyre
labelling legislation. The model provides results of a comprehensive accounting of the
impacts of ecodesign and energy labelling measures on the energy consumption, the socio-
economic situation (jobs), the industrial competitiveness (revenues) and the technology
development, over the period 2010-2050. A detailed description of the model is provided in
the report 'ecodesign impact accounting'
192
. A limitation of this model is that to determine
future product prices, the model applies a product-specific yearly price decrease representing
the expectations at the time the preparatory study or impact assessment for a specific product
group was drawn up; thus, it cannot apply more sophisticated approaches such as learning
curves for product prices as a function of volume of sales. Product life is assumed to be the
same for all scenarios. For most of the products, the product life is a fixed number
193
.
Different technologies within a product category can have different economic lifetimes, such
as is particularly the case for light sources. Further, the economic lifetime of vacuum cleaners
and electronic displays varies per year in order to ensure that the stock and sales data match
with the real figures. The model addresses the EU as a whole and applies EU averages for
parameters that vary across the EU (electricity prices, fuel, purchase prices etc.). The error
margin of the model is estimated to be within 10%.
For the baseline scenario the 'ECO' scenario of the model was used and adjusted to take into
account 10% of loss of projected energy savings due to non-compliance.
The model contains all product groups for which the regulations are listed in Annex 2 as well
as a number of further products groups for which regulations have not yet been published
194
.
However, for a number of products no energy savings are included in the model, because at
the time of finalising the product-specific input for the model (November 2013) there was not
sufficient data available to generate their energy savings. Details on specific products groups
are provided in the VHK study "Assistance to the Impact Assessment for the Review of the
Energy Labelling Directive and certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive".
To model the effect of the different measures, a number of assumptions were made for the
measures concerned, as indicated below, subsequently transformed into modelling inputs, on
which further detail is included in the VHK study. Measures related to market surveillance
and non-compliance rates are assumed to take effect on new products gradually between 2016
and 2020. Other measures are assumed to take effect in 2020, except for measure 2, which can
be effective as early as 2017.
Measure 1 (change the label scale layout)
192
193
194
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/studies/doc/2014_06_ecodesign_impact_accounting_part1.pdf
There are indications that product lifetime of a number of appliances may be decreasing: preliminary
results of a German study show that the average first useful service life of large household appliances
decreased from 14.1 to 13 years between 2004 and 2012/2013 in Germany (Umwelt Bundesamt,
Einfluss der Nutzungs-dauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informa-
tionsgrundlage und Ent-wicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz“ Zwischenbericht, February
2015), but such indications are too preliminary to take into account and would not mean different
assumption on product lifetime for different options.
Commercial refrigeration, solid fuel boilers, local space heaters and air heating and cooling products
104
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0105.png
In the second phase of the consumer understanding and behaviour study the four label layouts
presented in this impact assessment were tested on consumers for televisions and washing
machines
195
. The result of the behaviour experiment are expressed as the proportion of
consumers who choose the most, the middle and the least efficient model. These results are
shown in table 15 averaged for televisions and washing machines. The differences in
percentages can, taking into account the average class represented by respectively the most,
middle and least efficient model be translated into a share of a class increase or decrease
compared to the baseline: +0.14 class for the A-G label, -0.036 class for the numeric label and
+0.08 class for the reverse numeric label.
Table 15: Consumer purchase choices for different label layouts (television and washing machines
combined)
A+++ to D
(baseline)
Most efficient
(baseline class A+++ to A+)
Middle efficient
(baseline class A+ to A)
Least efficient
(baseline class A to B)
38%
37%
25%
A-G
(measure 1A)
45%
34%
21%
Numeric
(measure 1B)
37%
36%
27%
reverse numeric
(measure 1C)
42%
36%
22%
Measure 2 (more emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label)
This measure affects labelled consumer products, including space and water heaters.
Approximately 20% of consumers think the coloured arrows represent absolute energy
consumption rather than energy efficiency
196
. It is assumed that because of this measure half
of those who currently misunderstand the label on this aspect would better understand it and
buy appliances with lower absolute energy consumption, which is represented in the model as
buying appliances of one class higher.
Measure 3 (require for larger appliances a higher efficiency to reach a certain label class)
This measure affects labelled consumer products, including space and water heaters. It is
assumed that all consumers who currently misunderstand the label on absolute consumption
versus efficiency (see measure 2) would buy appliances of one class higher.
Measure 4 (provide monetary information)
This measure affects appliances where there is a high life-cycle cost saving: tumble driers and
water heaters. Also washer driers and space heaters have high energy use. However, washer-
driers are a nice product not included in the modeling used for this impact assessment and for
195
196
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014.
London Economics & Ipsos Mori, A study on the impact of the energy label – and of potential changes
to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions, 2014.
105
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0106.png
space heaters the model indicates that overall life cycle cost do not decrease for more efficient
models. Appliances bought are 5% more efficient than otherwise
197
.
Measure 5 (mandatory product registration database)
This measure is expected to increase compliance by 6%-point
198
and thus reduce losses from
non-compliance by 3%-point
199
. For the rule-making process: at the time of decision making
the data will be two years more recently than previously which on average is expected to lead
to 4% (2 times 2%; for 2 years) more ambitious ecodesign and energy labelling classes
requirements
200
.
Measure 6 (expand the database study)
This measure addresses the problem for the long rule-making process: at the time of decision
making the data will be two years more recent than previously which on average is expected
to lead to 4% more ambitious ecodesign and energy labelling class requirements (see measure
5). However, on-going experience with the current project indicates that it is difficult to
collect data without commitment for the industry. Therefore, it assumed that the effect is half
of what it could be, 2%. For the same reason it is assumed that the effect on market
surveillance is not significant.
Measure 7 (use learning curves for least life cycle cost)
For this measure that applies “learning curves” to the least life cycle cost requirement, the
effects are assumed to be half of the effects of the measure of changing the requirement and
applying instead the break-even point (see measure 8). Thus, ecodesign requirements are
estimated to be 2.5% more ambitious requirements for products only covered by ecodesign
and 1% more ambitious requirements for products that (also) have labels.
Measure 8 (change least life cycle cost requirement)
197
198
199
200
4.9% was found for tumble driers if in combination with staff training (Kallbekken
et al.,
Bridging the
Energy Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances,
2012)
Overall compliance rates in Australia are estimated to be at least 93%: labelling compliance is 89-98%
depending on appliance type and risk-based testing points to non-compliance rates under 8% (Mark
Ellis & Associates, Survey of Market Compliance Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Programs in
APEC economies, 2012), likely due to more effort on market surveillance compared to the EU average
(BIO intelligence service, 2013) and due to a product registration database. Both are assumed to
contribute to a similar extent. Better legal provisions might also contribute somewhat to the difference
in compliance between Australia and the EU. Therefore, the 13%-point difference in compliance rates
between Australia and the EU is attributed to 6% for measure 5, 6% for measure 9, 0.5% for measure 10
and 0.5% for measure 11 (no equivalent of measure 12, third party certification, exists in Australia).
The relationship between level of compliance and lost energy savings is based on the figures reported in
section 4.2.3, which indicate that currently 10-25% of products are non-compliant with ecodesign
requirements and 20% sold without labels (and another 15% displayed in insufficient way) , while 10%
of envisaged energy savings are being lost due to non-compliance. The average non-compliance figure
assumed for this purpose on the basis of these figures is 20%.
Energy use of dishwashers improved from 1.4 to 0.9 kWh per cycle between 1993 and 2013, which
means an average 2.2% improvement per year; for washing machines 1.27 to 0.57 kWh per cycle in the
same period which means an average 3.9% improvement per year (VHK, "Omnibus" Review Study on
Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers, Lighting, Set-top Boxes and
Pumps, 12 March 2014).
106
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0107.png
The change of the requirement to break-even point is expected to lead to 5% more ambitious
requirements for ecodesign
201
. For products with energy labels this effect is likely to be lower,
because many models are, driven by the label, already more efficient than the ecodesign
requirements. Instead of 5%, for products that have labels the effect is estimated at 2%
202
.
Measure 9 (support joint actions)
This measure increases the expenditure on market surveillance in the EU by about 25% and
addresses new cross-border cooperation. If done on long-term, this measure is expected to
increase compliance by 6%-point and thus reduce losses from non-compliance by 3%-point
(see footnote in measure 5).
Measure 10 (align with market surveillance regulation)
This measure is expected to increase compliance by 0.5%-point and thus reduce losses from
non-compliance by 0.25%-point (see footnote in measure 5).
Measure 11 (streamline legal provisions)
This measure is expected to increase compliance by 0.5%-point and thus reduce losses from
non-compliance by 0.25%-point (see footnote in measure 5).
Measure 12 (third party certification)
This measure is (in combination with measure 5) expected to increase compliance to 97% and
thus reduce losses from non-compliance to 1.5%
203
.
Measure 13 (EU market surveillance authority)
In this measure the expected compliance rates could be lower than for the combined measures
of option 2, because fraud with paperwork is more difficult to detect when parameters cannot
be verified with a laboratory test. However, energy efficiency requirements for energy-related
products (the only products included in the model) can continue to be verified in a laboratory
test and therefore the assumed compliance rate is 97%, reducing losses from non-compliance
to 1.5% (see measure 12).
201
202
203
The data in the ecodesign preparatory study for fridge-freezers pointed to a least life cycle cost point of
246 kWh/year and a break-even point of 232 kWh/year, thus 5.7% lower (Edouard Toulouse, Fine-
tuning the ecodesign engine: improving on the least life cycle cost criterion for a doubling of energy
savings, 2013)
For refrigerators/freezers it was found that roughly two thirds of the savings were a consequence of
energy labelling and rebate/promotion measures by Member States (which would not have been
possible without the methodological framework and reference values of the label) and one third was due
to the minimum standard (CECED lecture by prof. Stamminger at Energy Plus workshop, HomeTech,
Berlin, 2001, cited in Second ECCP Progress Report Can we meet our Kyoto targets?, Commission,
2003)
The main APEC economies with both third party certification and product registration that report
compliance rates (Canada, China, Mexico and Thailand), have such rates of 95-100% (Mark Ellis &
Associates, Survey of Market Compliance Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Programs in APEC
economies, 2012). This corresponds with figures found in the EU for safety legislation: Testing of
consumer electrical equipment with EU safety legislation showed 18% compliance for products without
third party certification and 75% with third party certification. When adjusting these numbers for slight
non-compliances they are 65% and 95%, respectively (International Federation of Inspection Agencies,
Consumer Product Safety in Europe: Results from the 2013 market study, November 2013)
107
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0108.png
A
NNEX
6 – T
HE BASELINE
–
PRODUCT SECTORS AND CONSUMER EXPENDITURE
Figure 12 and 13 show that the further energy savings referred to in section 4.3 apply to
almost all product sectors, but notably to space heating and lighting
204
. Nevertheless,
consumer expenditure on energy-related products, i.e. acquisition cost plus running cost, will
increase, whether energy prices will rise fast (figure 14Figure ) or slow (figure 15). This is
particularly the case for electronics and industry components, and in case energy prices
increase fast also space heating. It is however a significantly lower compared to the consumer
expenditure in the absence of ecodesign and energy labelling policy, as shown in figure 16.
12000
Baseline Primary Energy (TWh/a)
TRANSPORT SECTOR
10000
ENERGY SECTOR
INDUSTRY
COMPONENTS
CLEANING
COOKING
8000
TWh/a
6000
FOOD PRESERVATION
ELECTRONICS
4000
LIGHTING
VENTILATION
2000
SPACE COOLING
SPACE HEATING
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Figure 12: Baseline Primary Energy (TWh/a) per product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU for the
Entire Installed Stock.
1200
Baseline Primary Energy, New Products Only (TWh/a)
TRANSPORT SECTOR
ENERGY SECTOR
INDUSTRY
COMPONENTS
CLEANING
COOKING
1000
800
TWh/a
600
2030
FOOD PRESERVATION
ELECTRONICS
LIGHTING
VENTILATION
SPACE COOLING
SPACE HEATING
400
200
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
204
The energy savings for the transport sector in figure 12 and 13 reflect the impacts of the labelling of
tyres, see Annex 2.
108
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0109.png
Figure 13: Baseline Primary Energy (TWh/a) per product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU for New
Products Only.
1800
1600
1400
1200
Baseline Consumer Expenditure (bn €/a)
4 % escalation rate, constant
TRANSPORT SECTOR
ENERGY SECTOR
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
CLEANING
COOKING
FOOD PRESERVATION
ELECTRONICS
bn €/a
1000
800
600
400
200
0
LIGHTING
VENTILATION
SPACE COOLING
SPACE HEATING
WATER HEATING
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Figure 14: Baseline Consumer Expenditure (billion €/a) per product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU,
when assuming a constant energy price escalation rate of 4%.
1800
1600
1400
1200
Baseline Consumer Expenditure (bn €/a)
4 % escalation rate until 2020; 0.5% afterwards
TRANSPORT SECTOR
ENERGY SECTOR
INDUSTRY COMPONENTS
CLEANING
COOKING
FOOD PRESERVATION
ELECTRONICS
bn €/a
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2030
LIGHTING
VENTILATION
SPACE COOLING
SPACE HEATING
WATER HEATING
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Figure 15: Baseline Consumer Expenditure (billion €/a) per product sector, cumulative, Total for the EU,
when assuming an energy price escalation rate of 4% up to year 2019 and an escalation rate of 0.5% from
2020 onwards.
109
2030
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0110.png
Figure 16: Consumer expenditure EU 2030 in billion euro for the baseline (blue) compared to absence of
policy (blue plus pink), assuming energy price escalation rate of 4%.
110
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0111.png
A
NNEX
7 – P
RODUCT REGISTRATION DATABASE
:
PRACTICAL DETAILS
Before placing a product on the market, the manufacturer provides the following information
in the product registration database:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
suppliers name and/or trademark;
model identifier
205
;
the model identifiers of equivalent models (where applicable);
the label in electronic format;
the class(es) and other parameters on the label
206
;
the fiche in electronic format;
the user manual (in case of ecodesign);
website-address(es) where required product information is made available (in case of
ecodesign, where applicable);
EC declaration of conformity (in case of ecodesign);
the technical documentation specified in the applicable delegated act;
test report or similar evidence that requirements are met and that the data and
information on the label, in the fiche and in other required documentation is correct.
In addition, the EU legislation should require that the model identifier is printed on the
product, on the packaging, or available electronically by scanning a code on the model or the
packaging. That model identifier could consist of a (by the database) assigned code for the
identification of the manufacturer plus a further code for the specific identification of the
model (chosen by the manufacturer).
The information entered in the database shall be in one of the official languages of the
European Union. Manufacturers may update their registration, e.g. by adding further model
identifiers of equivalent models.
For products also covered by energy star, the database could be merged with the energy star
database.
205
206
Instead of being chosen entirely by the manufacturer, this could be a code of fixed length composed of a
part identifying the manufacturer that is allocated to him and a part identifying the model chosen by the
manufacturer.
The database would provide specific entry fields for this for each regulation.
111
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0112.png
A
NNEX
8 – T
RANSITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT LABELS
–
PRACTICAL DETAILS
When a different label than the A+++ to D label is introduced and when a label is updated
through rescaling, there would normally be two generations of labels in stores, making it
difficult for consumers to use the label to compare energy efficiency, whereas this is the main
purpose of the energy label.
Today, labels are introduced in shops because from a certain date suppliers add the label in
the packaging box and then the dealer affixes the label to the product
207
. Thus, labels are not
introduced for all products of a certain type on the shop floor at the same time. A legally
introduced product without a label or with an old label can remain without/with that label
until it has been sold. Dealers do not normally re-label products that are already in store
unless the label is lost or stolen
208
.
There can be four types of transitions where new labels are published by manufacturers:
a)
b)
c)
d)
first labelling of a previously unlabelled product group
updating the label of an already labelled product group with additional information
or graphical design changes (not affecting the label class of particular models)
reclassification of the A-G scale of the already existing label for a product group
(changing the position of particular models on the scale)
transition between one type of label to another due to the horizontal update of the
common energy label design (e.g. following a revision of the framework directive)
To date, only the transitions referred to under a) and b) have been experienced. There have
not been reports of a) being particularly problematic for either consumers, suppliers or
dealers. In the case of b), the label itself did not change substantially, and the label class of a
given model remained the same, so consumers were not puzzled by the coexistence of two
generations of labels. The transitions under c) and d) have the potential to cause more
confusion, as they involve a reclassification of products and the coexistence of possibly
substantially different energy labels. If labels are not updated simultaneously after
reclassification, models having the same energy efficiency risk being indicated as belonging
to different classes in the shops, which would mislead consumers and would put certain
suppliers at an undue disadvantage.
It is therefore necessary to improve the current approach so that consumers are not confronted
with products that they cannot correctly compare because the label on one of them is of a
previous label generation.
To achieve this, the following approach is envisaged:
207
208
In the case of lamps suppliers print the label on the packaging. In the case of luminaries and certain
types of air conditioners suppliers can alternatively make the label available electronically.
At the energy labelling conference of the German Energy Agency on 7 July 2014 dealers indicated that
the energy label is the single most common stolen item in German shops. Consumers remove the energy
label from products to compare products, remember it for future shopping or online shopping. This
creates problems for retailers as they need to obtain a new copy of the label, which they claim is hard to
get from suppliers (although the Energy Labelling Directive requires suppliers to deliver labels
promptly on request for dealers - Article 5(d)).
112
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0113.png
1. Suppliers would, for a period of several months (e.g. 6) after the date of application of
the new label for them, supply both the new and the old label with their products.
They would also be required to make the new label available for download on their
websites.
2. In this transition period, dealers would display the models with the old label but keep
the new label ready.
3. On a specific date at the expiry of the transition period, dealers would be required to
replace the old label with the new one on all products that are on display in the shops.
The date could be made to fall in a period when dealers review their stocks anyway
(e.g. January or July). It could also be given as a time period, rather than a single date
(e.g. no new labels are to be on display before 1 January, no old labels are to be on
display after 15 January).
4. For any products that were already in the shop before the transition period started,
dealers would have to obtain a new label from the supplier (it could also be made
available on-line for download on the suppliers' websites).
5. Online and paper promotional material would also be required to display the new label
classes of the products at the end of the transition period, but not before.
6. Member States would be required to set up promotional information campaigns to
prevent that consumers who have recently consulted energy labels get the impression
that less-efficient products are being offered to them.
Note:
For lamps, where the label is printed directly on the packaging, a different solution is
necessary, such as printing both the old and new label on the packaging for a specific period
of time, or a switch to providing the label on the shop shelf instead of the packaging.
113
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0114.png
A
NNEX
9 – A
DMINISTRATIVE BURDEN CALCULATION
Administrative and compliance costs have been analysed for each measure separately.
Administrative costs are defined as
“the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector,
public authorities and citizens in meeting legal obligations to provide information on their
action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties”.
209
The Commission's
in-house Administrative Burden Calculator was used to calculate administrative cost for
businesses and public authorities for measures 1 and 3.
Measure 1A: Label transition for the A-G label
As indicated in annex 8, suppliers will have to supply two labels instead of one for a period of
6 months at a cost of € 0.3 to print a label
210
. For an annual 300-400 million products sold
with labels
211
(excluding 500-2000 million lamps), this means a total of approximately € 50
million for suppliers to temporarily provide a second label for a transition of one label to
another for all product groups combined. Furthermore, suppliers may have to supply some
replacements labels on request of dealers depending on the delivery channel for replacement
labels (see Annex 8).
Dealers have to re-label products. For the Australian re-labelling program in 2000 it was
assumed that 10% of units sold during their 3-month transition period passed through
showrooms and incurred label change costs, while 90% would be delivered direct from
warehouse to buyer and needed no label change
212
. Thus, based on annual sales,
approximately 2.5%
213
of products need re-labelling in brick-and-mortar shops or on the
internet. Little effort is needed to re-label a product in the case of internet shops
214
for which
electronic labels are available
215
and in the case where new labels had already been provided
by suppliers in the period running up to the re-labelling date. In cases where the label has to
be requested from the supplier, the effort will be slightly higher (see Annex 8). An average
time of five minutes per product is assumed resulting in € 10 million costs for a transition of
one label to another for all products groups combined
216
.
These administrative costs are incurred every 5-10 years, meaning an annual cost of 5-10
million for suppliers and 1-2 million for dealers.
Measure 1B and 1C: Numeric / reverse numeric label
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
Commission impact assessment Guidelines
Estimated at 0.50 Australian dollar (exchange rate at the time approximately 0.6 €/Australian dollar) by
George Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd, Regulatory Impact Statement, Energy Labelling and
Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia, February
1999, p. 40
Of which approximately 100 million vacuum cleaners, 100 million displays, 50 million consumer white
goods, 40 million cooking appliances, 10 million room air conditioners and 60 million heating products
George Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd, Regulatory Impact Statement Energy Labelling and
Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia:
Supplementary Cost-Benefit Analysis on Transition to a Revised Energy Label, November 1999, p. 19
10% of sales during three months equal 2.5% of sales during one year.
In the UK between 11% and 24% of energy-related products were bought online in the period 2010-
2012, with the exception of computers for which this figure was already more than 80% (Consumer
Focus 'Under the influence? Consumer attitudes to buying appliances', 21 December 2012)
Cf. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 518/2004 with regard to labelling of energy-related
products on the internet; and SWD(2014) 57 final
At an employee tariff of € 14.30 per hour representative for shop sales workers
114
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0115.png
For the numeric and reverse numeric labels no label transition is necessary once those new
labels design are in place. However, the transition from the current A+++ to D label to one of
these two labels has administrative costs for dealers. These are the same cost as calculated for
measure 1A, € 50 million for suppliers and € 10 million for dealers, but, as mentioned, they
will only be incurred once.
Measure 2: More emphasis on absolute energy consumption on the label
This measure requires a consumer understanding and behaviour study to select the best
solution for providing more emphasis on absolute energy consumption in the energy label
layout, estimated at € 150.000-250.000. Applying the result of the study does not require
additional effort compared to business-as-usual.
Measure 3: Require a higher efficiency for larger appliances to reach a certain label class
This measure does not require additional effort compared to business-as-usual: the practical
effect is that those models that are affected will have a lower class on the energy label
compared to what they would have if this measure does not apply. This does not affect design
of a product, nor any of the administrative requirements that have to be met.
Measure 4: Provide monetary information
Dealers/installers of tumble driers and water heating equipment (the products to which this
measure applies) will have to access a webtool for each model concerned and select their
geographical location and the energy consumption indicated on the label of the product. The
webtool provides them with the cumulative annual running cost that they will have to display
near the price tag in their shop and/or catalogue. In addition, staff needs a brief training every
4-5 months
217
. A trial in the UK estimated the cost for dealers for one product group (washer-
driers) at £ 100.000 for the UK. When adjusted to the EU as a whole this amounts to
approximately € 1 million per year per product group
218
. For tumble driers and water heating
equipment combined that results in a total additional administrative burden for this measure
above business-as-usual of approximately € 2 million per year
219
.
The development of the webtools for these products combined by a contractor on behalf of the
Commission is estimated at € 100.000 with € 10.000 per year for maintenance..
Measure 5: Mandatory product registration database
The key burdens generated by this option are expected to be similar to those for the product
registration database for radio equipment
220
:
–
–
Training staff to become acquainted with the system: this is a one-time investment
and not considered significant.
Depending on the design for the operation of the database, upload manufacturer
information and obtain manufacturer code. This is again considered not significant.
"When the training is not refreshed, the effect declines sharply after 4–5 months, implying a need for
reminders of the training to maintain the effect over time" (Kallbekken et al., Bridging the Energy
Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances, 2012)
The UK has approximately 64 million inhabitants; the EU approximately 506 million.
At an employee tariff of € 41.50 per hour representative for managers and € 14.30 per hour
representative for shop sales workers
SWD(2012) 329 final, p.31
217
218
219
220
115
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0116.png
–
Upload product specific information: this implies selecting appropriate information,
formatting, and actually uploading the information. This is considered to be
significant.
However, because the model code would be determined by the manufacturer and not provided
by a pre-registration, the system is less complex than that for radio equipment. On the other
hand, the amount of data to be provided may be more than in the case of radio equipment.
Manufacturers of radio equipment claimed high administrative costs. However, the study
221
and impact assessment found that that perceived high additional burden seemed to arise
mainly from the fact companies were not complying with their existing obligations: "Should
the current obligation to establish a technical file prior to the placing of a product on the
market be systematically fulfilled, additional costs would be limited." Also for the registration
of energy–related products companies are already obliged to assemble all the required
documents and information, and to make this information available to authorities on request.
Thus, the only additional administrative burden is to register the information. For radio
equipment the volume of registration was estimated at 5000 models per year. Such figure is
likely to be representative also for lamps, but too high for other product groups covered by
ecodesign and/or energy labelling and an average figure of 1500 models
222
per year per
product group would be a more appropriate estimate
223
. Two hours of collection and
registration time per model family is assumed
224
, which corresponds with the estimated
administrative costs borne by suppliers for Australia's product registration database
225
. For the
+/- 30 product groups covered, the total additional cost of registration is estimated at € 3
million per year, or € 1.5 million in case the registration only concerns products that have
energy labels.
The burden for Member States' market surveillance authorities to obtain documents is
significantly reduced by this measure. It is, however, assumed that they spend the freed-up
time on other market surveillance activities instead thereby contributing to higher compliance
rates.
The costs for the Commission to set up the database are likely to be similar to the product
registration base for radio equipment, adjusted for the number of models to be registered and
kept in the database. The cost for the product registration base for radio equipment was
estimated at € 300.000 investment and € 30.000 annual maintenance costs for registration of
5000 models per year
226
. Based on the above estimate of new models per year per product
221
222
223
224
225
226
Technopolis Group report "Impact Assessment concerning a proposed mandatory registration system in
the scope of directive 1999/5/EC, 5.10.2009.
Equivalent models (i.e. models that are exactly the same with regard to energy efficiency, but sold
under different model codes or even brand names) can be registered through a single registration and
therefore count here as one model.
For electronic products 2500-3000 per product group based on Energy Star registrations, for many
domestic appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, tumble driers vacuum cleaners it is likely
to be much lower, possibly as low as 500. Industry databases for other domestic appliances such
refrigeration and cooking points to about 1500-2000. For heating/cooling equipment it is estimated to
be lower, in the range of 250-1000 depending on the specific product group. For commercial and
industrial products it would be in the range of 2000-3000 for motors and fans, but as low as 50 for
power transformers (VHK)
At an employee tariff of € 32.10 per hour representative for professionals
100 Australian dollar per model (exchange rate at the time approximately 0.6 €/Australian dollar). In
addition, Australia charges a registration fee of 150 Australian dollar per model (George Wilkenfeld
and Associates Pty Ltd, Regulatory Impact Statement Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy
Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia: Supplementary Cost-Benefit
Analysis on Transition to a Revised Energy Label, November 1999, p. 18)
SWD(2012) 329 final, Annex X
116
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0117.png
group of about 1500 for the +/- 30 product groups covered, this would imply approximately €
3 million investment and € 300.000 annual maintenance costs, or half of that in case the
registration only concerns products that have energy labels.
Measure 6: Expand the database study
The budget for the current three-year study covering six products was € 500.000
227
. The cost
for the Commission to cover about 30 products would thus be approximately € 1 million per
year. If only products that are covered by ecodesign only and not those (also) with labels need
to covered by the study (as in the case of option 1+), then the costs would be halved.
Measure 7: Use learning curves for least life cycle cost
Applying “learning curves” as sensitivity analysis in determining the least life-cycle cost can
be done as part of the work undertaken in the preparatory studies for product groups under
study and therefore does not cause significant administrative costs.
Measure 8: Change 'least life cycle cost' requirement
This measure does not require administrative effort additional to business-as-usual. However,
there are likely to be compliance costs for business in order to meet the more stringent
requirements. Such compliance costs are likely to be negligible for product groups that have
energy labels, where almost all businesses would, because of the energy label, in any case
already go beyond the minimum ecodesign requirements. For product groups only covered by
ecodesign requirements (and no energy labels) the compliance cost in terms of redesign may
be significant for some businesses. A recent case study for laptops estimated that the total
design costs for compliance with the seven applicable EU internal market directives and
regulations, including ecodesign, is € 8 million per year
228
. Assuming that: 1) one quarter of
that cost is due to ecodesign
229
; 2) changing the least life-cycle cost requirement to break-
even point may increase the design cost by half; and 3) laptops constitute about one third of
the ecodesign regulation for computers, the total additional compliance cost above business-
as-usual for the 15 regulations for product groups which have no energy label could be € 45
million per year
230
.
Measure 9: Support joint surveillance actions
Joint surveillance actions fit the requirements and description of 2014 Horizon2020 call on
the energy efficiency market uptake segment of "Ensuring effective implementation of EU
product efficiency legislation" for which the indicative cost was 1.5-2 million euro for the EU
budget
231
. Such a call would be opened every year with the aim to support several joint
actions per year.
227
228
229
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/tender/doc/2013/tender_specifications_eaci_iee_2013_002.pdf
230
231
SWD(2014) 23 final part 2, p. 52 and 54
Although there were seven applicable EU internal market directives that caused the total cost, not all of
those impacted design significantly and thus the weight of ecodesign among the seven is estimated to be
higher than one seventh: at one fourth.
€ 8 million divided by 4 (estimated share of impact of ecodesign in EU internal market directives
applicable to laptops) multiplied by 0.5 (50% extra design costs on top of business-as-usual due to the
change of least life cycle cost requirement to break-even point requirement) multiplied by 45 (to
account for all 15 product groups, because laptops only constitute 1/3 of a product group).
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2362-ee-15-
2014.html
117
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0118.png
Measure 10: Align with market surveillance regulation
This measure does not require additional effort compared to business-as-usual.
Measure 11: Streamline legal provisions
This measure does not require additional effort compared to business-as-usual, in particular if
the Directive(s) would be changed to (a) Regulation(s).
Measure 12: Third party certification
Third party certification requires product testing to be done by a third party. Current
ecodesign and energy labelling requirements already require businesses to test their products,
but they can do so in in-house facilities. Thus, the extra cost are the fee for the third party and
any logistics costs. These extra costs are estimated at, on average, € 3000 per model
232
.
Taking an average number of models tested per year per product group of 1500
233
, the total
additional cost of third party certification for the around 30 product groups covered is
estimated at € 135 million per year.
Measure 13: EU market surveillance authority
The costs related to the establishment of an EU market surveillance authority would entail the
building and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure, such as (i) establishment of a new
EU Agency, (ii) hiring EU market surveillance inspectors, (iii) providing the new Agency
with facilities necessary for performing its activities, etc. A precise estimate of these costs is
not possible. However, the order of magnitude can be estimated by referring to existing
agencies that carry out similar tasks, in particular the European Commission's Health and
Consumers Directorate-General directorate known as the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)
which performs market surveillance. The budget of FVO is estimated at around € 30 million
annually
234
. In this respect, it can be reasonably envisaged that the annual budget needed for
an EU Agency responsible for market surveillance of ecodesign and energy labelling would
be € 30 million. At the same time, Member States would no longer perform market
surveillance, spending an estimated € 10 million less per year (see Annex 3).
Measure 14: Review MEErP
This measure requires one expert study to review, and where necessary propose updates to,
the MEErP, estimated at € 100.000-200.000.
Measure 15: Extension of the scope to non-energy related products
So far, the focus of implementing measures under ecodesign has been on requirements
related, primarily, to the use phase. Conformity with any ecodesign requirements for non-
energy-related products, such as food and drink products, would rely on the provision of
information by suppliers to ensure that products comply with those requirements. Producers
or importers of such products would have to certify that the inputs used in their products were
produced by their supplier in certain ways so that the final product would meet the minimum
requirements. For certain requirements they would also need to know the values of the
relevant environmental impact indicators. Thus, unless there is direct control of the upstream
232
233
234
VHK
See analysis of administrative burden of measure 3
SWD(2013) 33 final, section 5.2.1.3
118
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0119.png
production stages, it would require producing and exchanging more environmental
information along the production chain. It would also require the use of declaration or
certification schemes
235
.
The cost of carrying out a life cycle assessment for one parameter for a specific model of an
industrial or agricultural product typically costs between € 3.500-11.000, but can cost as much
as € 50.000 or more. The costs of certification are estimated between € 1.500 and € 5.000 per
product
236
. Assuming the same amount of products groups as for energy-related products with
the same average figure of 1500 models per year per product group (see above, measure 3),
the total cost would in the range of € 225-720 million. In addition, there likely to be
compliance cost for redesign of products. Based on the estimate of compliance cost for
measure 8 (but applying to 30 instead of 15 product groups) these could be in order of € 100
million.
Further, market surveillance on such requirements would probably require considerable
resources to be effective with a higher risk of non-compliance in comparison to current
ecodesign requirements based on product testing
237
. This is taken into account through
measure 13 'EU market surveillance authority'.
Finally, a large majority of respondents to the public consultation across all stakeholder types
expects an increase of administrative burden for the Commission from this measure
238
.
Assuming the Commission staff dealing with ecodesign and energy labelling would need to
be doubled, about 15 additional posts are necessary
239
at an average cost FTE of € 131.000
240
.
235
236
237
238
239
240
CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) Final report, March 2012
OECD, Global Forum on Trade and Climate Change, Paris, 9 and 10 June 2009, Counting Carbon in
the Market Place, p.16
CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) Final report, March 2012
Ecofys, Background document II: Survey results. p.69
Current Commission staff for ecodesign and energy labelling is estimated at 11 posts in DG Energy, 3
in DG Enterprise and Industry and 1 in other DGs combined.
COM(2013) 75/3, p59
119
 kom (2015) 0341 - Ingen titel
1538403_0120.png
A
NNEX
10 – A
MBITION LEVEL OF MEASURES
The evaluation study provides the following analysis of the ambition level of ecodesign (ED)
and energy labelling (ELD) regulations:
"The survey asked stakeholders for their opinion on the ambition of ED and ELD measures
adopted to date [..]. Most stakeholder groups agree that, across product groups, the
implementing measures and labels have shown ambition that was too low compared to what
is technically and economically feasible. Government bodies were divided between assessing
the level of ambition as too low and correct
241
. Industry found the ambition of the measures to
be about right. Ambition clearly varies by product group. The consultation pointed out the
following broad perceptions by stakeholders on the energy saving ambition of ED measures:
•
•
•
•
•
Correct ambition for all stakeholders: boilers, standby and off-mode losses, external
power supplies, circulators in buildings, simple set-top boxes;
Correct to too low for government bodies, mostly correct for other groups: electric
motors, vacuum cleaners;
Too high for industry, too low for environmental groups, correct for other groups:
non-directional lighting;
Correct or too high for industry, correct to too low for government bodies, too low for
other groups: water heaters, directional lighting;
Correct for industry, correct to too low for government bodies, too low for other
groups: tertiary lighting, room air conditioning, fans, domestic refrigerators, washing
machines, dishwashers, laundry driers, water pumps;
Correct to too low for industry, correct to too low for government bodies, too low or
much too low for other groups: PC’s and servers, complex set-top boxes, imaging
equipment;
Correct for industry, too low too much too low for other groups: televisions.
•
•
The study team has done its own investigation on the ambition of product groups. As already
mentioned this analysis was limited in several ways. Nonetheless, we feel confident to say that
the level of ambition on electric motors, standby and off-mode losses, external power
supplies, circulators in buildings and non-directional lighting was correct. In addition, the
level of ambition on domestic refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers was too low
and for televisions was much too low."
241
It should be noted that the government bodies' original opinion of the measures ambition level,
expressed through qualified majority voting in the regulatory committee, is "correct" by default. It
could be that (1) the survey responses do not represent the opinion of the Member States as a whole, (2)
additional evidence has come forth that made Member States change their opinion.
120