Table of contents

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties. 4

1.1 Organisation and timing. 3

1.2 Impact Assessment Board. 5

1.3 Transparency of the consultation process. 6

1.4 Outcome of the consultation process. 6

2. Problem definition. 7

2.1 Baseline scenario. 8

2.1.1 Scope of appliances covered. 9

2.1.2 Sales and stock. 10

2.1.3 Environmental impact 10

2.1.4 Market structure. 14

2.1.5 Expenditure. 16

2.1.6 Improvement potential 16

2.2 Relevant legislation. 17

2.2.1 EU mandatory legislative measures. 17

2.2.2 EU voluntary measures. 21

2.2.3 Third country mandatory measures. 23

2.2.4 National and regional voluntary initiatives in the EU and third countries. 23

2.3 Market and regulatory failures. 24

2.4 Subsidiarity. 24

2.5 Legal basis for EU action. 24

3. Defining Objectives. 25

4. Identifying policy options. 26

4.1 Option 1: No EU action. 26

4.2 Option 2: Self-regulation. 26

4.2.1 Main elements of the voluntary agreement proposed by the industry. 29

4.2.2 Assessment of the voluntary agreement proposed by the industry against the criteria of Annex VIII to the Directive 31

4.3 Option 3: Mandatory energy labelling Regulation. 31

4.4 Option 4: Mandatory ecodesign Regulation. 32

4.5 Option 5: Combined mandatory ecodesign and energy labelling Regulations. 33

4.6 Policy options proposed. 33

5. Analysis of impacts. 34

5.1 Energy saving and security of supply. 35

5.2 Greenhouse gas emission reduction. 36

5.3 Customer economics and affordability. 39

5.4 Business economics and competitiveness proofing. 39

5.5 Territorial impact 40

5.6 Employment 40

5.7 Technology, functionality and innovation. 41

5.8 Health and safety. 41

5.9 Administrative burden. 41

5.10 Impact on trade. 40

5.11 Summary. 41

6. Comparing the options. 42

7. Monitoring and evaluation. 43

Annex 1 Steering committee meetings. 46

Annex 2 Recycling and reuse of paper and ink. 58

Annex 3 Manufacturers in ENERGY STAR database. 59

Annex 4 EPA.. 62

Annex 5 Ecolabels. 63

Annex 6 ENERGY STAR analysis. 64

Annex 7 Research 2012. 75

Annex 8 ENERGY STAR countries. 83

Annex 9 Voluntary agreement 85

Annex 10 Scenario data. 105

Annex 11 Compliance with Criteria VA (Art. 17) ………………………………………… 113

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

1.1. Organisation and timing

This is an impact assessment study on possible policy measures, including self-regulation, for imaging equipment (copiers, printers, multi-functional devices, fax machines) under the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC[1], possibly in combination with measures under the Energy Labelling Directive[2].

Legal basis of the Ecodesign Directive is Art. 114 TFEU (internal market)[3] and the Energy Labelling Directive is based on Art. 194 TFEU on energy policy, aiming amongst others at ensuring security of energy supply in the Union and promoting energy efficiency and energy saving.

Ecodesign and energy labelling requirements for products constitute an important instrument for meeting the policy objectives under the ‘Resource-efficient Europe - Flagship Initiative’[4], the ‘Energy 2020’[5] strategy paper and the Commission’s ‘Energy Efficiency Plan 2011’[6]. The Ecodesign Directive references the objectives of the EAP6 [7] and ECCP[8].

At an operational level the ’20-20-20’ target is relevant, which aims amongst others at a 20% reduction of energy consumption and carbon emissions in 2020 with respect of the reference year 1990 (or1995).[9] For (non-energy) resources efficiency it is important that measures address materials reduction, recycling and re-use.

Horizontal legislation covers aspects as chemicals[10] and waste[11]. Imaging equipment is part of the holistic energy accounting in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)[12] and the upcoming Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)[13]. It is also included in the carbon accounting of the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)[14].

Core of the product-specific EU policy measures on energy efficiency and paper saving features of imaging equipment is the voluntary EU ENERGY STAR programme[15], with upcoming support from the voluntary Green Public Procurement (GPP)[16] and EU Ecolabel which largely duplicate energy and paper saving requirements. More details are provided in par. 2.2.

Imaging equipment (‘Lot 4’) is a product group in the first tender for a series of ecodesign preparatory studies, issued by the Commission late 2005[17]. The preparatory study was performed by Fraunhofer IZM in collaboration with Öko-Institut between early 2006 and concluded May 2008.[18] The study concluded that the product group was eligible for ecodesign measures and proceeded accordingly (see par. 2.5, Legal basis).

Subsequently, in preparing a draft implementing measure and in accordance with recital 18, 19 and Art. 15(3) of the Ecodesign Directive, the Commission investigated the possibility of ’self-regulation, such as voluntary agreements, which, following an assessment in accordance with Article 17, are expected to achieve the policy objectives more quickly or at lesser expense than mandatory requirements.’[19]

In the Ecodesign Consultation Forum of 12 Oct. 2009, the imaging equipment industry presented a first draft proposal for a voluntary agreement (hereafter ‘VA’). Initial reactions to the VA are listed in par. 1.4. This led to a series of negotiations in the VA Steering Committee meetings, open to all stakeholders, resulting in better compliance with the generic requirements for a voluntary agreement in Article 17 and Annex VIII of the Ecodesign Directive (see par. 2.5, 4.2, Annex 11 of this IA). The last VA Steering Committee meeting was held in Dec. 2011 (see Annex 1), which prompted the Commission services to proceed with preparations for a policy decision, including an Impact Assessment (‘IA’).

As part of the IA, the Commission services with technical assistance of external consultants[20] updated certain aspects treated in the preparatory study. Analysis of the most recent energy efficiency data in the EU ENERGY STAR database[21] was performed (status Feb. 2012) and additional literature search revealed recent sources that allowed to fill in the blanks on the year 1995, a reference year for policy objectives such as the ’20-20-20’ target. (see par. 4.2 and Annex 7 of this IA).

The underlying report gives the outcomes of the IA.

1.2. Impact Assessment Board

The Impact Assessment Board gave its favourable opinion in the meeting of 19 September 2012 under the condition that report should be improved in a number of respects, in particular regarding clarification and expansion of certain elements. In response, the underlying report has addressed the issues mentioned. Paragraph 1.1 has been expanded regarding policy context and targets. The content of other paragraphs in Chapter 1 has been clarified. The introduction at the outset of Chapter 2 on the problem definition has been rewritten. In par. 2.1.4 the absence of independent EU-based manufacturing has been brought into better focus. The background to the definition of the baseline as well as the use of this baseline in the evaluation of options, have been clarified (par. 2.1, par. 5.10 and chapter 6). In par. 2.2, in particular the existing voluntary measures in the EU –with a leading role for EU ENERGY STAR programme—have been described more extensively and also the targets and ambition levels of current and future requirements have been highlighted. The explanation of the scope (par. 2.1.1) has been expanded regarding the exemptions. Chapter 3, in line with Impact Assessment Guidelines for comitology-decisions and self-regulation[22], has been kept compact on policy context already given in Chapter 1 but does expand on exact operational targets. Chapter 4 was expanded particularly in its description of the mandatory options. The impact analysis in chapter 5 now clarifies aspects of consumer impacts, administrative burden and industry competitiveness. In Chapter 6, the relative importance of the baseline has been better explained; improvements and targets have been put into perspective vis-à-vis the policy objectives.

Before the Impact Assessment Board meeting, the impact assessment report was subject to the consultations of the Ecodesign Inter-service Impact Assessment Group (2 August 2012). During the consultations, the impact assessment was amended according to the comments received from DG MARKT (clarification in Chapter 2.2.4 that GPP apply to the best products in terms of environmental performance) and from DG COMP (correction of the numbering in Annex 9 and in a footnote on page 22). Furthermore, DG COMP provided three comments on the text of the voluntary agreements that will be considered during its next review.

None of the members of the Group accepted an invitation to a meeting to discuss the impact assessment report.

Moreover, on 18 June, the draft impact assessment report was sent for consultations to DG ENTR (Unit B4) to obtain its preliminary comments on the report and in particular from the 'competitiveness proofing' angle. This version of the report includes comments received from DG ENTR.

1.3. Transparency of the consultation process

Consultation of the representatives of EU Member States and stakeholders (industry and NGOs) constituted an important part of the process of establishing ecodesign requirements for imaging equipment and of analysing impacts of possible measures.

Expertise was gathered in particular through:

§ The preparatory study[23], where stakeholders were actively participating including through multiple stakeholder meetings[24]. The preparatory study hosted a dedicated website[25] where the interim results and further relevant materials were published regularly for timely stakeholder consultation and input. The preparatory study provided the European Commission with the technical and market data supporting the establishment of eco-design requirements for imaging equipment in accordance with the methodology defined in Annexes I and II to the Ecodesign Directive;

§ Opinions of stakeholders gathered consistently throughout the whole process of establishing ecodesign requirements for imaging equipment and specifically through the Ecodesign Consultation Forum of 12 October 2009, in accordance with the stipulations of Article 18 of the Ecodesign Directive, as well as through bi and multilateral meetings, amongst others in the VA Steering Committee meetings, open to all stakeholders. Minutes of these meetings can be found in Annex 1.

§ Additional analysis (hereafter ‘Research 2012’) based on a public database of EU registered models that are compliant with ENERGY STAR requirements, accessible to and with results verifiable by all stakeholders and other interested parties.

Thus the Commission's standards on public consultation have been met.

1.4. Outcome of the consultation process

Positions of the main stakeholders on the key features of the proposal for the VA presented at the meeting of the Consultation Forum of 12 October 2012, can be summarised as follows:

§ The Member States supported in principle the industry proposal but would welcome a further improvement of the level of ambition. The industry was asked to provide further information/evidence on the level of market coverage of the agreement and further clarification on the governance of the VA.

§ NGOs would prefer a Regulation over a self-regulation. NGOs acknowledged that the industry proposal on imaging equipment had certain merits however it needed to be improved in terms of the representativeness and targets.

§ The industry pointed out the advantages of the presented self-regulation, i.e. fast entry into force of the requirements, greater flexibility, availability of data, and possibility of all market actors to work together towards greater energy efficiency of imaging equipment. The industry committed to providing the Consultation Forum with an independent assessment of the market coverage of the VA.[26]

In the context of the VA, two meetings of the Steering Committee established under this VA were held. At both meetings, representatives of the Commission, EU Member States and stakeholders have discussed the application of the VA[27] (see Annex 1).

As mentioned in par. 1.1, the negotiations prompted the industry to formulate a more stringent compliance rate, larger market coverage as well as –anticipating ENERGY STAR version 2.0 requirements likely to be introduced in 2013– addressing other environmental issues, such as design for recycling and re-use of cartridges.

The full text of the final VA is given in Annex 9.

Following the revision clause in the VA, already at the last meeting of the Steering Committee it was agreed that the signatories of the VA (hereafter ‘Signatories’) would establish a working group in 2012 that would prepare a new proposal for the next version of the VA that will be discussed with the Commission and other stakeholders in 2013.

2. Problem definition

If it is accepted that a limited level of market imperfection is unavoidable (see par. 2.3), there are no major ecodesign problems for the imaging equipment sector in comparison to other product groups subject to ecodesign regulations.

It should be stressed that the improvement in the IE sector has been realised in recent years by the industry on a voluntary basis. The preparatory study identified electricity consumption and indirect energy in the form of paper use as the most important environmental impacts.

· The latest 2012 research by the Commission estimates that over the last 15 years a direct electricity saving of 87% has been realized, i.e. from 27 TWh in 1995 to 3.5 TWh in 2010 (see table 4, p. 29 ‘Voluntary’ scenario), despite the fact that market penetration of equipment has continuously grown. Different from other sectors where voluntary agreements are proposed, this product sector has shown a long term proven track record of over 5-6% compound average annual efficiency improvement, which constitutes a significant achievement compared even to other sectors that have been extensively approached through mandatory policies such as the so-called ‘white-goods’.

· Indirect energy saving, in the form of using less paper due to duplexing[28] and N-printing[29], has been put on the agenda a few years ago and the use of N-printing and duplexing is progressing satisfactorily. Approximately 80% (colour) to 92% (monochrome) of typical office printers, i.e. with speeds above 19 images per minute ipm (colour) or 25 ppm (monochrome), now feature duplexing as a standard.

These developments have been made possible through R&D spending –as a percentage of turnover– well above general industry average and a portion of R&D spending on resources and environmental issues is estimated to be large (see p. 31 and Annex 3). Voluntary measures around the globe like ENERGY STAR, Japanese Top Runner, procurement, etc. have been measure drivers, not only for the achievements but also for globally harmonized test & calculation methods, revising them at a pace of once every 3-4 years, whereby these revisions increasingly also tackle new concerns like cartridge re-use. This level of harmonisation and the pace of revision is rarely achieved in mandatory measures.

The EU plays an important part in this global effort of voluntary measures, through the EU-US agreement on ENERGY STAR (see p. 15), confirmed in regulations and governed by the EU ENERGY STAR Board (EUESB) with representation of all Member States, through the Green Public Procurement GPP, the EU Ecolabel, etc. A recent Commission communication COM(2011) 337 has once again stipulated and quantified the success of these measures for the office equipment sector as a whole.

The only significant concern in the case of imaging equipment is that the above mentioned could significantly slow down or stop.

The VA provides a guarantee to maintain a similar pace of improvement. The VA fulfils all requirements for this type of agreement and the monitoring mechanisms are deemed satisfactory. The construction of the VA is similar to other ecodesign VAs that had already been subject to the impact assessment.

Nevertheless, stakeholders from Member States and NGOs have been debating the acceptance and content of the VA. Three important reasons can be mentioned:

1. The nature of the voluntary instrument inherently provides less ex-ante certainty than mandatory instruments. Stakeholders have thus sought assurances as much as possible.

2. The initial VA proposals by the industry were not very ambitious in providing the minimum degree of certainty that stakeholders were after. Throughout the negotiation process of the last three years the ambition level of the VA has been raised.

3. The poor data availability and incomplete analysis at the time of the preparatory study led to some incorrect messages, e.g. that improvements would stop at 2005 level and savings could only achieved with mandatory measures, which only in the underlying report could be corrected through additional analysis.

The key question of the underlying report is whether the current trends of energy efficiency improvements for this sector, with an extensive set of voluntary instruments –backed up by the VA as a guarantee– should continue ‘as is’ or whether there is a merit in introducing mandatory ecodesign and energy labelling measures.

2.1. Baseline scenario

The following sections describe in a greater detail the inputs used to define the baseline ( hereafter ‘BAU’[30]) scenario for calculating economic and environmental impacts.

The BAU scenario is linked to the ‘no EU action’ option (see Chapter 4) and means that no new measures will be implemented. With most product-groups being investigated under the Ecodesign Directive, this means that an on-going – negative or at least suboptimal – trend continues. However, in the case of imaging equipment, where the on-going trend is very positive and the industry is proposing a VA as an extra guarantee for continuity instead of mandatory measures, the ‘no EU action’ scenario actually means a rupture in current EU policy relying on voluntary policy measures and a considerable risk of the on-going trend slowing down, stopping or reverse.

The implications of prolonged uncertainty over mandatory measures can of course not be fully predicted. Uncertainty provokes cautious behaviour, i.e. postponing investments, avoiding risks at all levels, keeping up with a minimum compliance with known voluntary efficiency levels but nothing more, preparing for reaction instead of taking action, focussing on areas –geographically or otherwise—where there are less risks. This is exactly the type of behaviour that has been assumed in the preparatory study concluded in May 2008. Therefore, and also because it provides the comprehensive set of data that has been used all through the consultation process, the IA report takes their ‘average case’ with reference year 2005, with some minor corrections, as the baseline.

2.1.1. Scope of appliances covered

The scope of the future measure was decided on the basis of Articles 15 and 16 of the Ecodesign Directive and was later refined during the preparatory study in search for a functional approach[31].

The scope of the future measure (defined in the preparatory study) covers monochrome or colour output imaging equipment that uses Ink Jet (hereinafter 'IJ'), Electro photographic (hereinafter 'EP' or ‘laser’) and Solid ink (hereinafter 'SI'; SI will be included in the EP category marking technologies. Moreover, EP equipment is split between copiers, printers and facsimile machines and IJ is expressed in multi- and single function devices.

It is estimated that the products covered constitute more than 90% of imaging equipment sales. Products that are exempted include printers for special applications such as large size printers (e.g. for technical drawings) and printers with legacy marking technology such as DT (dot matrix), TT (thermal transfer) and DS (dye sublimation). The latter have survived, for reasons of compactness, robustness or other features, in retail (cash-receipts, price labels), outdoor applications (e.g. ATM receipts, parking tickets) and official document printing (e.g. passports and ID cards). Setting up test & calculation methods for these specialty printers would be time-consuming without any noticeable environmental gain.

Also exempted are high speed printers with speeds >66 images per minute ipm (monochrome) and >51 ipm (colour). They are used in professional print-shops, where the purchaser has a high-interest in keeping running costs low. Consequently they are the most energy efficient around and all have duplexing capabilities. It is believed that the economic interest of market forces will continue to regulate these models and it is not necessary to include them explicitly in the scope.

2.1.2. Sales and stock

The sector is economically significant. In 2010 the unit sales of imaging equipment in the EU27 amounted to approximately 31 million units[32] of which 25.5 million IJ units and 5.5 million EP units. In 2020, estimated sales (based on the preparatory study) will reach approximately 37 million units of which 30.5 million IJ and 6.5 million EP units. Sales projections for 2030 have some degree of uncertainty[33]; a linear projection would suggest that in 2030 the EU27 unit sales would reach around 41 million units, of which 34 million IJ units and 7 million EP units.

This proves that imaging equipment meets the first criterion of Article 15(2) of the Ecodesign Directive, i.e. that the product group represents a significant sales volume (sales over 200 thousand units/a).

Furthermore, the sales data results in a combined annual turnover of the imaging equipment industry (manufacturers, wholesale and retail) in the EU25 of 5 billion Euro (2004 data[34]).

Figure 1: EU-27 sales for imaging equipment

2.1.3. Environmental impact

The preparatory study and the research 2012 identified the main environmental impacts of imaging equipment over their life cycles. The corresponding environmental parameters of imaging equipment are:

· electricity consumption during use phase;

· paper consumption during use phase;

· toner/ ink consumption during use phase.

Electricity consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions

On the basis of the preparatory study data and the research 2012 data, the total electricity consumption in the period 2005-2022 of the stock is calculated. For the period 1995-2005, the preparatory study supplies no data and this was derived from the Top Runner trend (see Chapter 2.2.3) using 2005 as a stationary point. In 2022 there has been a full stock change of products subject to measures proposed here. For 2022-2030 there is some degree of uncertainty of the technological trends and no new measures are calculated.

The total electricity consumption of the stock of imaging equipment amounts to 9 TWh/a in 2010. This corresponds to a total of around 3.4 Mt CO2 eq. emissions (0.07% of the total CO2 emissions in the EU27[35]). The electricity consumption in 2020 will be around 9.5 TWh/a, and in 2030 it is estimated to be 10.4 TWh/a. Electricity projections between 2020 and 2030 have some degree of uncertainty, as already mentioned in Chapter 2.1.2.

Figure 2: Electricity consumption EU-27 (baseline)

Table 1: Electricity consumption, Greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalent), EU-27, 2010

|| Avg. Installed 2010 (kWh/year. unit) || Avg. Sold 2010 (kWh/year. unit) || Total electricity consumption in 2010 (stock) TWh/year || Total GHG emissions in 2010 (Mt CO2 eq.)[36]

Electricity avg./total || 67 || 70 || 9 || 3.4

of which ink jet || 21 || 21 || 2.3 || 0.9

of which EP (‘laser’ ) || 286 || 289 || 6.7 || 2.5

Paper consumption

Indirectly, paper is the most energy consuming component of the imaging equipment unit. The equipment is not responsible for the volume of document pages (‘images’) that the user wants to print or copy, but it is at least half responsible for the physical amount of paper that is required, i.e. if it does not provide the possibility of double-sided printing (‘duplexing’) or ‘N-printing’ (2 or more reduced-size document pages per paper page). For reasons of clarity and because the important issue is the marginal improvement and not the absolute figure, it was decided not make a partitioning between the paper use that is the responsibility of the user and the paper use due to limitations of the equipment, but instead report on the total paper use of imaging equipment as it becomes apparent from e.g. ENERGY STAR duty cycles.

Single print

According to the preparatory study, an average unit is producing 24 400 images per year (122kg/ unit at 80 g/m2) single page print only. On the basis of a single page printing, the stock would consume 16 100 million kg (16.1 Mt) of paper per year of which 1 700 million kg (1.7 Mt) in the IJ equipment and 14 400 million kg (14.4 Mt) in the EP equipment. Energy consumption to produce this paper would be 645 PJ primary energy[37] and GHG emissions 9.6 Mt CO2 eq. per year.

Duplexing

In the real life duplexing will be used. Assuming 65% duplexing rate and 15% N-printing[38] in 2005, this results in the paper consumption of around 15 000 pages (approximately 75 kg/unit at 80g/m2). Thus, it is estimated that imaging equipment in the EU27 consumes almost 10 000 million kg (10 Mt) of paper annually, of which 1 700 million kg (1.7 Mt) in IJ equipment and 8 300 million kg (8.3 Mt) in EP equipment. Energy consumption to produce this paper is 400 PJ in primary energy (equivalent to around 40 TWh electricity) and the related greenhouse gas emissions amount to 6 Mt CO2 equivalent per year.

The indirect energy consumption (in electricity equivalent) in 2020 will be around 42.75 TWh/a and in 2030 it is estimated to be 47 TWh/a, as can be seen in the figure below. The projections between 2020 and 2030 have some degree of uncertainty, as already mentioned in Chapter 2.1.2.

Figure 3: Indirect paper energy consumption EU-27 (in electricity equivalent TWh)

Ink consumption

The average unit consumes 662 g toner/ ink per year. In total 87 million kg toner (ink)/yr is consumed, of which 23.1 million kg ink for IJ equipment and 63.9 million kg toner for EP equipment. The total energy consumption to produce this toner/ink is 3.5 PJ[39] primary energy (equivalent to around 0,35 TWh electricity) and the related greenhouse gas emissions amount to 0.17 Mt CO2 equivalent per year.

Figure 4 clearly shows that paper consumption is the biggest energy consumer compared to electricity use and ink.

Figure 4: Primary energy consumption of environmental parameters of imaging equipment in 2010

Total energy consumption

The table below presents the total energy consumption for imaging equipment over the period 1995-2030. The indirect energy (energy consumption to produce paper) is calculated in electricity equivalent so that the direct and indirect energy can be compared. This is the business as usual scenario that will be used in the evaluation of different policy options in Chapter 5.

Table 2: Total energy consumption imaging equipment in EU-27 (TWh)

|| 1995 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2015 || 2020 || 2025 || 2030

Direct energy (Electricity in TWh) || 27.01 || 22.33 || 11.97 || 8.67 || 8.69 || 9.13 || 9.74 || 10.40

Indirect energy (Paper in electricity equivalent TWh) || 23.42 || 27.74 || 33.14 || 38.77 || 40.89 || 42.75 || 44.43 || 46.99

Total energy consumption (TWh) || 50.43 || 50.07 || 45.11 || 47.44 || 49.58 || 51.88 || 54.18 || 57.39

Figure 5: Total energy consumption imaging equipment in EU-27 (direct + indirect energy consumption)

This proves that imaging equipment meets the second criterion of Article 15(2) of the Ecodesign Directive, i.e. significant environmental impact (see Chapter 2).

2.1.4. Market structure

There are no independent EU-manufacturers of the products in the scope that have a full manufacturing line for these products. And there are certainly no SMEs competing in this market of large multinationals. The 15-25 000 EU industry jobs are all with subsidiaries of Asian (mainly Japanese) and North-American companies.

Furthermore (see par. 2.1.4 and par. 5.4) none of these subsidiaries has a full production line, so there are also no local SME part suppliers. At best the European subsidiaries make spare parts but above all they are engaged in logistics and support activities (distribution centres, sales offices, service engineers, administrative regional headquarters, etc.).

The only independent EU-manufacturers of imaging equipment produce specialty-printers for cash-registers, passports, etc. (Olivetti, Compuprint, cab GmbH) that are not in the scope of the VA. Furthermore there are resellers with their own brand name or manufacturers that do not produce imaging equipment anymore in the EU (e.g. Philips). The preparatory study (Task 2, Table 6, p. 9) mentions that there were still a few independent German and Dutch producers in 2007, but in the meanwhile they are no longer independent: In 2008 Kyocera Mito (JP) has taken a majority share in UTAX (D) and TA Triumph-Adler(D). In 2009 Océ (NL) was taken over by Canon (JP).

A list of the current 17 Signatories of the VA (par. 4.2.2, p. 22) is believed to cover more than 90% of industrial market actors for the products in the scope (p. 23, 96% according to industry, see p.44).

The EU27 printer market is dominated by five producers, namely Hewlett- Packard (US), Canon (JP), Epson (JP), Lexmark (US) and Brother (JP) representing by up to 86 % of the market (Figure 6).[40] These five manufacturers also control the total imaging equipment market in the EU 27, where they have a market share up to 70%.[41]

Geographically, the industrial employment is concentrated in the Netherlands (many European HQs, Océ R&D, total ca. 6 000 jobs) and Western European Member States like Germany, UK, France and Italy with each 1 000 – 3 000 jobs partitioned to imaging equipment industry. In other Member States the industrial employment is held at the level of 100-500 jobs.

Figure 6: Companies with high market shares in printers unit sales in 2006 for the geographic region of Europe, the Middle East and Africa (source: Gartner market research 2006)

Retail activities include ink cartridge shops and office supplies dealers. Equipment retail takes place through specialist shops, supermarkets and internet.

2.1.5. Expenditure

The expenditure related to the use of imaging equipment is presented in Table 3 and Figure 7.

Table 3: Expenditure (billion euros) of the main environmental parameters of imaging equipment in 2010

|| Purchase costs[42] || Maintenance costs || Electricity costs || Paper costs[43] || Toner/ ink costs[44] || Total consumer expenditure EU-27

Expenditure total || 14.8 || 14.0 || 1.6 || 64.4 || 161.1 || 255.9

of which Ink Jet || 5.1 || 0 || 1.2 || 6.7 || 16.8 || 56.2

of which EP (‘laser’ ) || 9.7 || 14.0 || 0.4 || 57.7 || 144.3 || 199.7

Figure 7: Total consumer expenditure of the main environmental parameters of imaging equipment

2.1.6. Improvement potential

The preparatory study states that for the reference year 2005 the existing cost effective technical solutions allow for improvement of the energy efficiency of imaging equipment. The total energy consumption of imaging equipment can be reduced up to 30% according to the best case scenario presented in the preparatory study. This statement will be moderated in the updated analysis described in Chapter 4.2, but it indicates that a significant improvement potential exists. The preparatory study concludes that savings can be achieved without excessive costs.

This indicates that imaging equipment meets the third criterion of Article 15(2) of the Ecodesign Directive, i.e. significant improvement potential without excessive costs.

2.2. Relevant legislation

2.2.1. EU mandatory legislative measures

Currently there is no mandatory EU legislation on energy efficiency of imaging equipment. However, certain aspects of imaging equipment are partially regulated in the following EU laws:

· Regulation 1275/2008[45] lays down requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment. The impact of this Regulation can remain limited as imaging equipment are rarely in the 'off' or 'standby' modes as they need to be constantly in on mode or ‘networked standby’ mode to be able to operate.

· Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (hereinafter 'WEEE')[46] that applies to office imaging equipment under category 3 of Annex IA, IT and telecommunications equipment, stating that:

§ the rate of recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 75% by an average weight per appliances;

§ component, material and substance reuse and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 65 % by an average weight per appliance.

Annex II to the WEEE Directive provides selective treatment for materials and components of waste electrical and electronic equipment in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Directive. In case of office imaging equipment, the provisions apply to toner cartridges, liquid and pasty, as well as colour toner.

· The Directive 2011/65/EU on restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (hereinafter 'RoHS')[47] applies to the use of the heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants (poly-brominated diphenyl ethers and poly-brominated biphenyls) in new electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market after 1 July 2006.

In part, also the voluntary ENERGY STAR programme discussed hereafter contains some mandatory clauses, in as much as Article 16 of Regulation 106/2008/EC enforces public procurement of office equipment to use the ENERGY STAR criteria.

2.2.2. EU voluntary measures

EU ENERGY STAR programme

On 19 December 2000 the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment was signed between parties. It was confirmed in the EU law in 2001. The objective is to set up a common labelling programme for energy-efficient office equipment, the ENERGY STAR.

The nature of the Agreement can be summarised as follows:

· ENERGY STAR is the name and the logo of the joint programme and is a US-registered service mark owned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

· Participation in the programme is voluntary, and the Agreement makes provision for manufacturers, vendors or resale agents of the products in question to register as participants in the programme and to be authorised to use the ENERGY STAR logo to identify their products, provided that these meet the requirements set out in Annex C to the Agreement (e.g. low-power ‘sleep’ mode option for monitors). The Agreement basically covers the office equipment listed in the Annex thereto (monitors, computers and operating systems, but also fax machines, scanners, copiers and printers).

· The products identified by the ENERGY STAR logo are tested at the participants' installations or by an independent testing laboratory. The management bodies designated by the two signatories may also test or examine products in order to verify whether they comply with the specifications set out in the Agreement.

· Each party designates a management body to be responsible for the management of the ENERGY STAR programme: on the one hand, EPA and, on the other, the Commission. The EC has assigned the task of setting and reviewing the technical specifications and of monitoring the application of the programme within the Community to an appropriate body, viz. the European Union ENERGY STAR Board. This body, which is made up, in part, of national representatives, will advise and assist the Commission in the management of the programme.

· The Agreement sets out guidelines on the proper use of the ENERGY STAR name. These guidelines cover not only the use of the logo as a label but also the use of the ENERGY STAR name in educational documents, advertisements, etc.

· The parties are free to amend the Agreement (e.g. addition of a new item of equipment) by mutual agreement of the two management bodies. They may also terminate the Agreement at any time by giving three months' notice, in which case the European Community will no longer be able to use the ENERGY STAR mark, since it is the property of the EPA.

· The Agreement is concluded for five years.

The EU participation in the ENERGY STAR programme was confirmed in Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001[48] and implemented through Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 of 6 November 2001[49]. The Agreement has been renewed in 2006[50] and 2011[51]. In that context, Commission Communication COM(2011)337 on the implementation of the ENERGY STAR programme in the EU in the period 2006-2010[52] proposed certain adjustments for the prolongation of the Agreement, specifically on the requirements of third part testing.

Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 has been recast in Regulation (EC) No 106/2008[53]. Article 6 of the latter regulation stipulates that Commission, other Community institutions and central government authorities of Member States shall specify energy-efficiency requirements not less demanding than the Common Specifications [i.e. ENERGY STAR specifications] for public supply contracts. Around mid-2012 a new EU ENERGY STAR Regulation is expected, dealing with the adjustments (or similar) suggested in COM(2011)337.

Since 2008 the ENERGY STAR equipment specifications have been incorporated in European law. Council Regulation 1275/2008/EC[54] has been issued on stand-by energy use. ENERGY STAR specifications for imaging equipment are described in Commission Decision 2009/347/EC of 20 April.[55] Commission Decision 2009/486/EC has been issued on the revision of computer specifications[56]. Commission Decision 2009/789/EC sets out ENERGY STAR specifications of displays.[57]

In its dealing with the EU ENERGY STAR the Commission, and the designated Management Entity, is assisted by the ENERGY STAR Board with full representation of the EU Member States. Commission Decision 2003/168/EC of 11 March 2003 establishes the European Community ENERGY STAR Board (ECESB).[58] Commission Decision 2003/367/EC sets the internal rules of procedure of the European Community ENERGY STAR Board.[59]

The official EU ENERGY STAR database of ENERGY STAR compliant office equipment can be found on www.eu-energystar.org. News, rules for registration and other ENERGY STAR related information are also published on this website. At the moment (Sept. 2012) around 5100 models of EU ENERGY STAR compliant imaging equipment are registered.

COM(2011)337 concludes that the ENERGY STAR programme in the European Union is successful. Furthermore, it specifies that ‘The dynamism and voluntary nature of ENERGY STAR make it a policy tool particularly well suited for ICT products’. It illustrates this by showing the expected impact of ENERGY STAR on the electricity consumption of computers and displays by 2020, where ENERGY STAR is expected to save 35% versus a baseline without policy. In the underlying report it will be shown that for imaging equipment similar savings can be expected. Furthermore, COM(2011)337 notes that the number of manufacturers participating in the programme has increased significantly from 16 companies in 2006 to 74 in 2010 with public procurement (since 2008) as a main driver.

The focus of the current ENERGY STAR version 1.1 criteria for imaging equipment is on (1) duplexing and N-printing, (2) the typical electricity consumption (TEC)[60], (3) the operational mode (OM)[61] and (4) the digital front end (DFE) requirements[62].

In the ENERGY STAR version 2.0 more stringent ambition levels on the above mentioned issues as well as additional requirements on (5) design for recycling and (6) cartridge re-use can be expected.

Draft 1 of ENERGY STAR requirements version 2 [63] shows TEC and OM requirements that are, depending on the print speed, 30-45% lower than in ENERGY STAR version 1.1 (see Annex 6). Stand-by values are 50% below version 1.1 level.

The aim is, verified with draft requirements and models currently on the market[64], to set the energy efficiency limits that would allow 25-35% of the models –depending on print speed– to pass (compare: today 90% of models in the scope passes ENERGY STAR v. 1.1 requirements).

Green Public Procurement

In 2004, the Council and the European Parliament adopted Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC aimed at clarifying, simplifying and modernising existing European legislation on public procurement. Directive 2004/18/EC [65] is the most relevant for procuring imaging equipment and it contains specific reference to the possibility of including environmental considerations in the contract award process. The preamble to Directive 2004/18/EC identifies the objective of clarifying how contracting authorities ‘...may contribute to the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development, whilst ensuring the possibility of obtaining the best value for money for their contracts.’

More detailed provisions permit the inclusion of environmental requirements in technical specifications (Article 23(3)b), the use of eco-labels (Article 23(6)), applying award criteria based on environmental characteristics (Article 53), etc.. The Directives thus offer a number of opportunities for GPP to be implemented, throughout the contract award process.

Currently GPP criteria for imaging equipment are being drafted and published for consultation. The criteria relate to energy efficiency and duplexing as well as design for recycling and cartridge re-use, in line with ENERGY STAR requirements.[66]

EU Ecolabel

The EU Ecolabel[67] is a voluntary label that helps identifying products and services that have a reduced impact on the environment throughout their life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to production, use and disposal.

The draft Ecolabel criteria include requirements for energy, duplexing, N-printing, recycling and re-use, hazardous substances, indoor air pollution, noise, and criteria on ink and toner consumables. The requirements on energy anticipate upcoming ENERGY STAR version 2.0. [68]

2.2.3. Third country mandatory/ voluntary legislative measures

Japanese Top Runner

The Top Runner approach identifies the most efficient product on the market and on the basis of its specifications, establishes energy efficiency requirements that all similar products must meet by a specified date.

Copying machines became designated products for the Top Runner standard in 1999 with a target year 2006. During this period, many energy saving technologies were developed. In 2006 an improvement of 72.5% with respect of 1999 was reached (far beyond the originally anticipated improvement of 31.0%).[69] No new targets have been set for dedicated copiers due to the fact that multifunctional devices took over the market while the number of shipped copiers was significantly reduced.

Multifunctional devices and printers came in the scope of the Top Runner program in 2007. In that year, a calculation formula for target standard values was developed on the basis of the actual measurements of annual energy consumption of these appliances. The target year for the multifunctional devices and printers is 2017.

Figures 8 and 9 show that the Japanese Top Runner targets for monochrome and colour imaging equipment for 2017 are almost in line with what is expected for ENERGY STAR version 2.0. This confirms the role of ENERGY STAR as the de facto standard for energy efficiency of imaging equipment.

Figure 8: Target standard lines for monochrome imaging equipment (ENERGY STAR vs. Top Runner. source VHK[70])

Figure 9: Target standard lines for colour imaging equipment (ENERGY STAR vs. Top Runner. Source VHK)

US ENERGY STAR programme

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the ENERGY STAR label in 1992 to recognize energy-efficient computers. Since then, the label has grown to identify efficient products across more than 40 product categories and in more than 35 countries[71]. For office equipment (category ‘Computers’) a distinction is made between computers, displays and imaging equipment.

The ENERGY STAR programme is a voluntary partnership between government, businesses, and purchasers designed to encourage the manufacture, purchase, and use of energy efficient products. The primary objective of the ENERGY STAR programme is to make it easy for buyers to identify the most energy-efficient products in the marketplace by differentiating them with the ENERGY STAR mark. When the EPA and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) set specifications for the specific products, they strive to recognize the top energy performers in the market [72] (Annex 4 gives more detailed information about when the specifications are set or changed).

The main driver for industry participation in ENERGY STAR in the US is that meeting the ENERGY STAR requirements is a mandatory condition for procurement by the US government and governmental institutions.

2.2.4. National voluntary initiatives in the EU Member States and third countries

The most important national and regional voluntary initiatives regarding the labelling and subsequent procurement incentives for imaging equipment are:

Australian Voluntary Environmental Labelling Standard GECA: The primary purpose of this standard is to define environmental performance criteria for the most harmful environmental and human hazards of printers and fax machines placed on the Australian market and to use these criteria as indicators of general environmental performance of this product group. [73]

Nordic Swan: The Scandinavian Nordic Swan Ecolabel product definition and criteria refer to the current ENERGY STAR criteria for energy consumption. Other criteria relate to the design for reuse/disassembly/recycling and presence of hazardous/toxic substances.[74]

Blue Angel: The German Blue Angel ecolabel employs, just like the ENERGY STAR programme, limit values for power consumption and default times for transition between various power modes, but uses a more elaborate approach.[75]

Umweltzeichen of Austria: The Austrian Umweltzeichen, ‘UZ 16’ Office appliances with print function, sets out criteria for energy consumption, emissions, paper and toner use. [76]

A more complete overview of national and regional voluntary initiatives in the EU and third countries is given in Annex 5.

2.3. Market and regulatory failures

As mentioned in Chapter 2, if it is accepted that a limited level of market imperfection is unavoidable there are no major ecodesign problems for the imaging equipment sector in comparison to other product groups subject to ecodesign Regulations.

In as much as market and/or regulatory failures for imaging equipment exist, according to the preparatory study they pertain mainly to the low-volume equipment in the consumer market and less to the professional office market,. They can be caused by the fact that current electricity prices do not reflect environmental costs for society and thus play an insufficient role in the purchase decision (negative externality). Furthermore, most consumers base their choice of equipment on purchase price and other factors like availability, service and 'trusted' brand names rather than energy costs because of lack of adequate information (asymmetric information). In this context it is relevant that the Energy Star logo is well known in the office sector but much less with private consumers. Finally, cases of market failure occur where investment costs and running costs are borne by different parties, e.g. a company purchasing department may have a different financial perspective than the business unit actually using the equipment and paying for its running costs (split incentives).

2.4. Subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to European citizens. Consequently, EU Institutions should take action only in areas which fall within its exclusive competence and which lead to a more effective action if the latter was taken at national, regional or local level. The production of imaging equipment is a global business with no EU players and Member States are fully aware that requirements regarding the placing on the market can only effectively be realised at EU, if not at a global level.

2.5. Legal basis for EU action

The Directive 2009/125/EC (hereinafter ‘Ecodesign Directive’)[77] establishes a legal framework for laying down ecodesign requirements for selected priority product groups.

According to Article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive, a priority product group must be covered by either a mandatory implementing measure (i.e. the Commission Regulation) or a self-regulation (e.g. a voluntary agreement concluded by the industry), if it meets three conditions: (i) represents significant sales volumes, (ii) has a significant environmental impact and (iii) has a significant improvement potential.

In accordance with Art. 15(6) and Annex II of the Ecodesign Directive a technical-economic analysis shall be performed, amongst others proposing target levels based on the available data at the time.

Article 16 of the Ecodesign Directive provides the legal basis for the Commission to adopt an ecodesign Regulation for a chosen product group, while Article 19 provides for a regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adoption of such a measure.

Recitals 18, 19 and Art. 15(3) of the Ecodesign Directive encourage the Commission to give priority to a self-regulation over a mandatory measure, if the former is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner then the latter.

According to Article 17 of the Ecodesign Directive, a valid voluntary agreement proposed by the industry must comply with the criteria laid down in Annex VIII to the Ecodesign Directive.

An ecodesign self-regulation meeting the conditions stipulated in Annex VIII to the Ecodesign Directive can be considered a valid alternative to an ecodesign mandatory implementing measure. Consequently, as long as the voluntary agreement meets its objectives, the Commission may refrain from adopting an ecodesign implementing measure.

If the monitoring and reporting performed under the voluntary agreement, or Member States or stakeholders indicate distortions in the functioning of the voluntary agreement, the Commission should consider proposing ecodesign mandatory Regulation. The Commission may recognise valid VA in the form of a Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council. (i.e. non-legislative act).

3. Defining Objectives

The strategic policy context has been addressed in par. 1.1. Operational objectives that are relevant for measures on imaging equipment in the context of ecodesign are:

· a 20% energy saving in 2020 versus 1990,

· a 20% carbon emission abatement in 2020 versus 1990,

· promotion of non-energy materials resources efficiency through amongst others materials reduction (e.g. paper), recycling (e.g. of larger plastics parts, electronics, metals) and re-use (of toner cartridges).

The preparatory study stated that with respect of the 2005 level a 30% electric efficiency improvement in 2020 was cost-effective, to be reached through mandatory measures. This conclusion is in line with what usually can be expected from mandatory ecodesign measures also for other product groups. It would mean that in a ‘best case scenario’ and a continued increase in market penetration of the equipment, the absolute EU energy consumption in 2020 would remain at the 2005 level. The preparatory study did not provide energy efficiency data for 1995.

The additional 2012 research by the Commission based on new data that came available after the conclusion of the preparatory study filled in the 1995 data and showed that the ambition level can be significantly higher. More specifically, new information indicated that if the positive trend –based on voluntary measures– continues, a 60% energy saving over the 2012-2020 period is realistic. This means a 2020 target value of 1.5-2 TWh electricity consumption, i.e. an electricity saving of 90-95% over the policy reference period 1990-2020 is realistic.

For automatic duplexing and N-printing a realistic target is that in a few years over 90% of typical office printers (speed >19 ipm for colour; >25 ipm for monochrome) will have both features. A further penetration of duplexing in the consumer market (below the given speeds) may be expected, but –given the low printing volume—add relatively little in terms of savings for 2020.

4. Identifying policy options

This Chapter describes five policy options that will be considered in this impact assessment.

Option 1: No EU action

Option 2: Self-regulation

Option 3: Mandatory energy labelling Regulation

Option 4: Mandatory ecodesign Regulation

Option 5: Combined ecodesign Regulation and energy labelling Regulation

4.1. Option 1: No EU action

This option means that the EU will not engage in any new measures.

Furthermore, ‘No EU action’ also means that the Commission does not accept the VA concluded by the imaging equipment industry and thus still considers the option of mandatory action beyond (ambitious) criteria proposed in the VA. As has been argued in the introduction of the ‘baseline scenario’ (par. 2.1) this creates a high level of uncertainty and a considerable risk that the on-going positive trend of energy efficiency improvements will slow down, stop or may well be reversed. Specifically, there is a possibility that R&D spending on energy efficiency, as part of the total R&D budget, can be reduced, e.g. in favour of aesthetics, gadgets or minor performance features. Manufacturers, which are all extra-EU multinationals, can decide not to introduce on the EU market their most energy efficient models[78]. Furthermore, in a worst-case scenario, the EU-US co-operation could fall apart with negative repercussions on the current global harmonisation in test procedures and requirements.

To calculate the effect of this scenario the baseline scenario from the preparatory study has been assumed.

4.2. Option 2: Self-regulation

This option means that the Commission will continue relying on the self-regulation and will accept the VA as a guarantee for continuation of the current trend and will refrain from mandatory actions under Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/31/EU as long as the policy targets are met. The terms of the final VA are given in Annex 9.

In short: the energy efficiency and duplexing requirements relate to the current ENERGY STAR requirements version 1.1 and commitments that by 1 January 2012, 90% of models of Signatories will meet those requirements. Signatories cover over 90% of the EU market.

Design for recycling and re-use of cartridges are new items in the VA, i.e. they are not part of ENERGY STAR v. 1.1 but anticipate requirements of the new v. 2.0.

Section 11 of the VA states that a revision of the VA will take place 3 months after the publication of a new version of the ENERGY STAR programme requirements. The Commission, assisted by a Regulatory Committee will decide whether the ambition level and others terms and conditions of the revised VA are acceptable, following consultations with all stakeholders (including NGOs and industry) in the Consultation Forum framework[79].

It was understood between parties that a revised VA would adhere to the continuation of the progress in recent years. Chapter 3 explains the target values that pertain to this policy option.

These ambitious targets that go far beyond what was considered possible in the preparatory study, can be found in achievements seen in previous years:

· Over the 1995-2005 period, industry reached an electricity saving of at least 60-65%, i.e. for the EU the electricity consumption for imaging equipment was reduced from 27 TWh/a in 2005 to around 9-10 TWh/a in 2020 (see also par. 2.2.3.Top Runner).

· Over the 2005-2012 period, strictly following voluntary measures, a further reduction of electricity consumption was reached of 60-65% with a drop to 3.5 TWh in 2012. This was achieved not only through 90% of models complying with ENERGY STAR version 1.1 (as assessed in the context of the VA) but also by the fact, as shown by the 2012 additional analysis, that the average compliant model outperformed the minimum ENERGY STAR energy efficiency requirements by 43%. (see Annex 7) Over the 2005-2012 period, the share of typical office models with automatic duplexing rate increased from an estimated 65% in 2005 to 80-90% in 2020. Duplexing rates for 1990-1995 are not available (see Annex 7).

· Overall, over the period 1995-2012 an energy saving of 87% was reached, which results in an average efficiency improvement of over 6% annually.

Hereafter the second and third points are illustrated with some main outcomes of the analysis of the ENERGY STAR database in February 2012. A full explanation is given in Annex 7.

Typical Energy Consumption (TEC)

The ENERGY STAR methodology for the efficiency of mainly EP imaging equipment distinguishes four TEC classes: TEC 3 and 4 cover monochrome and colour MFDs respectively; TEC 1 and 2 cover other imaging equipment (copiers, printers, fax machines etc.) with monochrome and colour output respectively. All TEC classes use a standard size paper format and the energy performance is determined through a duty cycle.

Figure 10 shows how the registered EP models in the EU ENERGY STAR database (n=2612) score against the minimum requirements of ENERGY STAR version 1.1 for the various TEC classes. The minimum requirement is set at 100% and efficiency classes with a bandwidth of 10% were distinguished. For example an efficiency class ’10-20%’ means that these models consume 80 to 90% less energy than the ENERGY STAR limit. The models in the class ‘>100%’ were not in the database; they constitute 10% of the total (ca. n=290).

Under the terms of the VA, over 90% of products comply with the ENERGY STAR version 1.1 means that still, 10% of products is not included in the database and thus an additional column was added to the graph below representing the percentage of products that are outside the VA and assumed to be above the maximum TEC value. With a sample size of 2 612 products representing 90% of the market, the 10% outside the scope represent around 290 products.

Figure 10: Number of product per energy efficiency class

The results in figure 10 are not weighted for the specific energy consumption. For example it might well be that the best models pertain to low-volume/low speed imaging equipment, whereas most high volume equipment that has the highest environmental impact is very close to the limit. To take that into account, an analysis was made of the print-speeds (which determine the print volume in the ENERGY STAR metric) within each TEC class. The results are shown in figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Overall electricity use distribution

The results from figure 11 are slightly less favourable than those in figure 10, However, as mentioned above, this indicates that the average energy efficiency of the models is over 40% better than the ENERGY STAR limit. This is not exactly a sales weighted outcome but it is as close as data allows and given the large number of models it is estimated to be accurate.

Duplexing and OM (operational mode)

Similar to the TEC improvement, the OM and duplexing rate also show potential for significant savings. More detailed information on the ENERGY STAR requirements is given in Annex 6.

For OM products the ENERGY STAR v.1.1 requirements sets maximum power values for standby-mode (1 Watt), sleep-mode (between 1.4 - 30 W depending on OM class) and ‘functional adders’[80] like interface (e.g. wired, wireless, infrared) and storage (e.g. CCFL lamps, memory, cordless handset). On average the EU-registered products are also 35% below the levels. The best products perform 85% better than the maximum requirement.

4.2.1. Main elements of the VA proposed by the industry

At the Consultation Forum meeting (of 12 October 2009), the imaging equipment industry has presented a proposal for a VA (self-regulation) aiming at limiting the power consumption of imaging equipment placed on the EU market. The proposal for the agreement has been amended on the basis of comments received from the Commission and stakeholders.[81] The VA version 3.5, of 15 February 2011 has already been signed and has entered into force and thus it already generates savings.

Scope

The VA applies to imaging equipment defined as in ENERGY STAR v.1.1. ENERGY STAR distinguishes the Typical Electricity Consumption (TEC) products and Operational Mode (OM) products. TEC products are standard-size copiers, Multifunction Devices (MFDs), and printers that use Electrophotography (EP), Solid Ink (SI), and High Performance Ink Jet (IJ) marking technologies, OM products cover the remainder of mainly non high-performance inkjet products (see par. 2.1 for exemptions).

Signatories

Currently there are seventeen Signatories[82] to the VA, including: Brother International Europe, Canon, Dell, Epson, HP, Kodak Limited (UK), Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe, KYOCERA Document Solutions Europe B.V., Lexmark International, Murata Machinery Europe, OKI (UK) Ltd., Panasonic Europe Ltd., Ricoh Europe PLC, Samsung Electronics Europe, Sharp Electronics (Europe) GmbH, Toshiba TEC Germany Imaging Systems and Xerox. The current Signatories to the VA account for more than 90% of the total EU market for imaging equipment, which exceeds the agreed limit[83].

As required by Annex VIII to the Ecodesign Directive, the voluntary agreement remains open to the participation of other companies.

Requirements

The requirements laid down in the VA are based on the ENERGY STAR programme requirements (v.1.1). The VA will be revised in 2013 to be brought in line with the new ENERGY STAR programme requirements (v.2) to enter into force in 2013.

Each signatory to the agreement committed itself that at least 90% of its products placed on the EU market (regardless of their origin) will comply with the minimum efficiency requirements formulated in TEC and OM[84]. Furthermore, all products should comply with to the requirements on duplexing rates, recycling and use of cartridges.

Administrative bodies

The VA establishes two administrative bodies:

o The Steering Committee consists of the representatives of the Signatories to the agreement and the European Commission. The representatives of the EU Member States, EFTA/EEA countries and NGOs have a status of observers. The Committee manages the agreement. The Committee is to meet at least twice per year and its meetings are open to any person who represents a legitimate stakeholder. The Committee is to seek to achieve agreement by consensus at all times.

o The Independent Inspector plays a crucial role in the process of monitoring the application of the agreement. 'ERA Technology Ltd' has been chosen to act as the Inspector[85].

4.2.2. Assessment of the VA proposed by the industry against the criteria of Annex VIII to the Directive

According to Article 17 of the Ecodesign Directive, voluntary agreements and other self-regulation presented as alternatives to ecodesign mandatory Regulations shall be assessed on the basis of nine criteria laid down in Annex VIII to the Directive:

1. openness of participation,

2. added value,

3. representativeness (market coverage),

4. quantified and staged objectives,

5. involvement of civil society (transparency and dissemination of information),

6. monitoring and reporting, cost-effectiveness (no disproportionate administrative burden),

7. sustainability (meet policy objectives in this respect),

8. incentive compatibility (consistency with other policy measures).

Therefore, before proceeding to the comparison of the expected impacts of this option with the impacts of other viable options, an analysis of these criteria has been performed. This is reported in Annex 11. The VA fulfils the criteria for a valid voluntary agreement laid down in Annex VIII.

4.3. Option 3: Mandatory energy labelling Regulation

This option would include the mandatory energy efficiency labelling of imaging equipment consisting of seven efficiency classes established under the Energy Labelling Directive[86].

This option would imply the following benefits of the labelling:

· it could allow comparison on gradual scale and would help consumers to make cost effective purchasing decision by addressing running costs,

· it could increase the compliance rate. However, given that the latest tests of office equipment showed a 95% compliance rate with self-certification, the additional gains are expected to be minimal[87].

Drawbacks for energy labelling:

· A difference between the seven energy scales would be very close, what – coupled with the measurement tolerances — might have a negative effect on the credibility of such a scheme.

· Mandatory Regulations might affect agreements between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European Commission about the use of ENERGY STAR programme, because it is necessary that the ENERGY STAR programme and the ecodesign scheme are consistent and coordinated.

· New testing requirements in the energy labelling Regulation would add at least one month to the process of product registration.

· The cost of product registration would increase, in a way that would unevenly impact different market operators.[88]

It is therefore concluded that a policy option that relies only on energy labelling will not be optimal. This is in line with conclusion of COM (2011)337. Energy labelling besides the agreement will be time consuming and will increase the administrative burden for the manufactures. Therefore, this option is discarded from further analysis.

4.4. Option 4: Mandatory ecodesign Regulation

This option aims at improving the environmental performance of imaging equipment by laying down mandatory minimum efficiency requirements for their power consumption.

Article 15(5) of the Ecodesign Directive requires that an ecodesign Regulation must meet the following criteria:

a) there shall be no significant negative impacts on the functionality of the product, from the perspective of the user,

b) health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected,

c) there shall be no significant negative impact on consumers in particular as regards affordability and life cycle cost of the product,

d) there shall be no significant negative impacts on industry’s competitiveness,

e) in principle, the setting of an ecodesign requirement shall not have the consequence of imposing proprietary technology on manufacturers,

f) no excessive administrative burden shall be imposed on manufacturers.

In general an ecodesign Regulation could be an effective measure because it is largely independent on consumers and market behaviour and takes the worst performing products from the market.

The biggest disadvantage of a mandatory Regulation vis-à-vis an effective voluntary agreement is that its ambition level is typically very much lower. By definition, a Regulation requires not 90% compliance, like a VA, but 100% compliance. This may seem more ambitious, but in practice this is highly questionable. The ‘missing’ 10% difference between a VA and a Regulation usually concerns the special products with specific functionality that will have trouble in meeting stringent requirements and/or it concerns products marketed by a few financially weak companies for which even modest investments might be problematic. In other words, in order not to come into conflict with Article 15(5) regarding the requirement of ‘no negative effect’ on e.g. functionality or industry competitiveness, this 10% will drag down the ambition level for the whole product group considerable, i.e. by much more than 10%.

It is concluded that this policy option is valid and thus it will be further analysed and compared with other valid options in Chapter 5.

The scenario analysis of this option takes the above into account: The first tier was set for 2014, assuming an efficiency target level of 40% under the BAU level and the second tier was set for 2016 assuming a target level 60% below BAU. For duplexing it was assumed –optimistically—that it would be possible, after the formulation of a list of exemptions, to set requirements with the same effect as the Voluntary option, i.e. that for typical office printers a 75% (2014) and 85% (2016) duplexing rate would apply.

4.5. Option 5: Combined mandatory ecodesign and energy labelling Regulations

This option foresees the adoption of the ecodesign and energy labelling Regulations.

As stated above, an ecodesign Regulation could be an effective measure, because it is largely independent on consumers and market behaviour and could take the worst performing products off the market.

However, as concluded above, the energy labelling will be time consuming and will increase the administrative burden for manufacturers.

It is therefore concluded that this option is discarded from further analysis.

4.6. Policy options proposed

Given the previous paragraphs the options considered in the impact analysis are as follows:

· 'Baseline' (Business As Usual, hereinafter 'BAU') that follows the preparatory study;

· 'Voluntary', assuming that the combination of the current measures (ENERGY STAR, GPP, etc.) and mainly the voluntary agreement proposed by the industry will allow for maintaining the pace of improvements at a level above ENERGY STAR requirements[89];

· 'Mandatory' (ecodesign) assuming the adoption of a mandatory ecodesign Regulation.

The technical and market data on the ENERGY STAR programme and the voluntary agreement that supports the analysis of the proposed options is provided in Annex 6.

5. Analysis of impacts

The aim is to describe for each option the associated environmental, economic and social impacts related to achieving compliance with the applicable requirements, while avoiding negative impacts on industry’s competitiveness and product functionality. This assessment includes impacts on manufacturers, including SMEs.

This chapter compares impacts of the options per aspect, including:

· energy saving and security of supply,

· paper consumption (duplexing),

· greenhouse gas emission reduction,

· customer economics and affordability,

· business economics and competitiveness,

· employment,

· health, safety and other environmental aspects,

· technology, functionality and innovation, and

· administrative burden (including monitoring and reporting).

Starting point of the analysis was the preparatory study, which was the basis for the ‘BAU’ scenario. Sales data of the preparatory study is used in the stock model to calculate the stock, electricity consumption and paper consumption for all the options.

Additional analysis was performed on the models registered in the EU ENERGY STAR database at www.eu-energystar.org. It showed electricity consumption and duplexing characteristics of all imaging equipment models placed on the EU market that were registered in the EU ENERGY STAR database in 2012 but also in preceding reference years back to 2009 (see Annex 6). This assessment showed not only the number of models compliant with ENERGY STAR requirements version 1.0, 1.1 (on which the current VA is based) and the draft version 2.0 (to enter in force in 2013 and on which the next version of the VA will be based), but it revealed also how much better these models scored with respect of the ENERGY STAR minimum requirements.

The results of this assessment are shown in the Voluntary scenario. It is assumed under this scenario that a voluntary agreement will allow for maintaining the pace of improvements at the levels above the ENERGY STAR requirements (as in previous years). More details of this option are provided in par. 4.2 and in Annex 10.

The third option is ‘Ecodesign’ that lays down minimum mandatory efficiency requirement for imaging equipment placed on the market. More details of this option are given par. 4.5 and in Annex 10.

5.1. Energy saving and security of supply

The table and figure below shows the direct electricity consumption of the imaging equipment, the indirect energy consumption (calculated as electricity equivalent) to produce paper and total energy consumption (direct + indirect) of the BAU and two other options.

Table 4: Energy consumption of IE for BAU, Voluntary and Ecodesign scenario in TWh (electricity equivalent) for EU-27

|| 1995 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2015 || 2020 || 2025 || 2030

BAU (preparatory study) || || || || || || || ||

Direct (TWh) || 27.01 || 22.33 || 11.97 || 8.67 || 8.69 || 9.13 || 9.74 || 10.40

Indirect (TWh) || 23.42 || 27.74 || 33.14 || 38.77 || 40.89 || 42.75 || 44.43 || 46.99

Total (TWh) || 50.43 || 50.07 || 45.11 || 47.44 || 49.58 || 51.88 || 54.18 || 57.39

|| || || || || || || ||

Voluntary || || || || || || || ||

Direct (TWh) || 27.01 || 22.33 || 9.04 || 3.54 || 1.56 || 1.22 || 1.27 || 1.33

Indirect (TWh) || 23.42 || 27.74 || 33.14 || 36.67 || 34.67 || 35.62 || 37.03 || 39.16

Total TWh) || 50.43 || 50.07 || 42.18 || 40.21 || 36.23 || 36.84 || 38.29 || 40.49

|| || || || || || || ||

Ecodesign || 1995 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2015 || 2020 || 2025 || 2030

Direct (TWh) || 27.01 || 22.33 || 11.97 || 8.67 || 6.98 || 3.57 || 3.83 || 4.08

Indirect (TWh) || 23.42 || 27.74 || 33.14 || 38.77 || 39.69 || 36.21 || 37.03 || 39.16

Total (TWh) || 50.43 || 50.07 || 45.11 || 47.44 || 46.68 || 39.78 || 40.85 || 43.24

Direct energy consumption

Option Ecodesign saves approximately 5.6 TWh in 2020 and 6.3 TWh/a in 2030 compared to BAU (61% savings). Option Voluntary saves some 7.9 TWh/a in 2020 compared to BAU and 9.0 TWh/a in 2030 compared to BAU (87% savings).

The most remarkable outcome of research 2012 is that the electricity consumption of imaging equipment covered by the voluntary agreement is around 40% better than the minimum requirement according to ENERGY STAR v. 1.1.

Indirect energy consumption

This product group consumes also a lot of indirect energy as can be seen in the paper consumption.

The table above shows the paper consumption of imaging equipment products per unit per year, according to the different duplexing rates and the electricity equivalent of the energy that is required to produce that paper for all imaging equipment in the EU. The number of prints is assumed the same for each year and the only change is in the duplexing rate, following ENERGY STAR requirements[90].

For the BAU a duplexing rate of 65% is used as already explained in Chapter 2 and an N-printing possibilities of 15% is used for all the options. The Voluntary scenario is linked with the ENERGY STAR requirements concerning duplexing. The analysis of the research 2012 (Annex 6) has been used to calculate the duplex rates. This resulted in 78% duplexing in 2009 and 85% in 2013. The Ecodesign scenario follows the BAU till 2014 where besides energy efficiency requirements also requirements for duplexing are set. In 2014, 75% of imaging equipment products has to have duplexing capabilities and in 2016 this has to be 85%.

The table above shows paper savings in 2020 of 17% in the case of the Voluntary scenario compared to the baseline what results in an energy saving for paper production equivalent to around 7.1 TWh/year in electricity.[91]The above estimate should be treated with caution. The calculation is based, as was the baseline calculation, on the paper output for an average product. Differentiation and weighting by print speed (images per minute ipm) and the related non-linear increase of paper output would result in a higher share of duplexing. On the other hand, an unknown share of images printed by a duplex printer may still be single-sided and this would have a more unfavourable effect on the duplexing figures presented above.

Figure 12: Total energy consumption IE per scenario for EU-27 in TWh per year

5.2. Greenhouse gas emission reduction

Table 5: CO2 emissions of imaging equipment per scenarios in Mt (eq.) for EU-27

|| 1995 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2015 || 2020 || 2025 || 2030

BAU (preparatory study) || || || || || || || ||

Direct (Mt) || 12.56 || 9.60 || 5.03 || 3.56 || 3.43 || 3.47 || 3.51 || 3.54

Indirect (Mt) || 3.51 || 4.16 || 4.97 || 5.82 || 6.13 || 6.41 || 6.66 || 7.05

Total (Mt) || 16.07 || 13.76 || 10.00 || 9.37 || 9.57 || 9.88 || 10.17 || 10.58

|| || || || || || || ||

Voluntary || || || || || || ||

Direct (Mt) || 12.56 || 9.60 || 3.80 || 1.45 || 0.62 || 0.46 || 0.46 || 0.45

Indirect (Mt) || 3.51 || 4.16 || 4.97 || 5.50 || 5.20 || 5.34 || 5.55 || 5.87

Total (Mt) || 16.07 || 13.76 || 8.77 || 6.95 || 5.82 || 5.81 || 6.01 || 6.33

|| || || || || || || ||

Ecodesign || || || || || || ||

Direct (Mt) || 12.56 || 9.60 || 5.03 || 3.56 || 2.76 || 1.36 || 1.38 || 1.39

Indirect (Mt) || 3.51 || 4.16 || 4.97 || 5.82 || 5.95 || 5.43 || 5.55 || 5.87

Total (Mt) || 16.07 || 13.76 || 10.00 || 9.37 || 8.71 || 6.79 || 6.93 || 7.26

The picture for greenhouse gas emissions is similar to that of the electricity consumption. The estimated CO2 emissions savings in 2020 for the Voluntary scenario is 4.07 Mt CO2 equivalent compared to the BAU and are higher than savings to be achieved under the ecodesign option.

Figure 13: Total CO2 emissions of imaging equipment per scenarios in Mt (eq.) for EU-27

5.3. Customer economics and affordability

The VA is an extra guarantee for a continuation of the on-going trend; hence no impacts of measures on the consumer prices are expected as a consequence of the VA in the ‘Voluntary’ scenario. In the Ecodesign scenario, the progress in energy efficiency and other features is less significant than in the ‘Voluntary’ scenario and thus no higher production-costs, and also no higher purchase prices, could be expected from the measures.

5.4. Business economics and competitiveness proofing

The impact of the two options on the turnover and investment costs of stakeholders is small. There are no significant investments needed and the price level can be maintained.

The main difference between the baseline scenario and policy scenarios such as the voluntary agreement is not in an absolute investment level, but in the way the customary R&D investments – typically 3.6 to 8.7%[92] of turnover in this sector — are spent. The agreement indirectly ensures that the industry remains committed to R&D-spending on energy saving and environmentally friendly features. Without the agreement the industry might decide to invest more in aesthetics or other commercial gadgets appealing to customers. Likewise, companies invest continuously in lowering production costs through improving rationalisation, automation and/or employing low-cost labour. The agreement indirectly ensures that the gain from this activity – for example 2% per year is spent in paying for the extra energy features while keeping consumer prices more or less constant.

5.5. Competitiveness proofing (CP)

CP is a possible element of the Impact Assessment. Commission Staff Working document SEC (2012) 0091[93] describes ‘Competitiveness proofing’ as ‘a complementary instrument to reinforce the overall assessment of economic impacts of a new proposal with a better account of impacts on enterprise competitiveness at sector and aggregate level by identifying, and – where proportionate – by quantifying the likely impacts of the new proposal in three dimensions of enterprise competitiveness, i.e. costs, capacity to innovate and international competitiveness [of the European industries].’

However, the same source also states that ‘In the case of policy interventions of a self-regulatory nature (such as codes of conduct, or voluntary standards), the case for an in-depth analysis of impacts on sectorial competitiveness is likely to be limited since the sector itself plays a key role in determining the content of the initiative’.

For the products in the scope of the agreement or other considered options, the need for an in-depth competiveness proofing is further weakened by the fact that there are neither EU owned manufacturers nor any mainstream product manufacturing activities on EU27-soil by non-EU companies. The EU27 hosts the administrative headquarters, physical distribution facilities, sales offices and other commercial activities of non-EU companies as well as some of their research and development (R&D) activities, technical support, manufacturing of spare parts and auxiliaries.

It is concluded that a more in-depth competitiveness proofing in this case is not necessary.

5.6. Territorial impact

Territorial impact assessment (TIA) is one of the possible elements of the impact assessments. As stated in a recent presentation of the Commission services[94], TIA is only required when the policy explicitly targets a (type) of a region and/or the policy targets some regions or areas more than others. In the case of the ecodesign policy for imaging equipment, these conditions do not apply and thus the TIA is not appropriate.

5.7. Employment

Actual manufacturing of mainstream imaging equipment, part production and assembly of imaging equipment could not be identified according to the preparatory study and the research 2012. Therefore any negative impact of product-oriented measures can be excluded. Geographically the industrial employment is concentrated in the Netherlands (many European HQs, Océ R&D, total ca. 6 000 jobs) and other EU Member States like Germany, UK, France and Italy with each 1 000-3 000 jobs partitioned to imaging equipment. In the remaining Member States the employment rate is at the level of 100-500 jobs, mainly depending on the size of the national markets and - to a lesser degree - the geographical focus of individual manufacturers.[95]

5.8. Technology, functionality and innovation

The implementation of the Ecodesign and particularly Voluntary scenario would not have a negative impact on the functionality of the equipment. Linking the agreement with the ENERGY STAR programme reduces the electricity consumption of imaging equipment without a need for additional changes to the technology or functionality.

5.9. Health and safety

The preparatory study addresses the health issues briefly. Studies published by BGfA[96] and BfR[97] prove that emission levels are below the maximum amounts of indoor emission levels[98]. Modern printer designs, especially the smaller devices produce little or no ozone.[99] No impacts of the considered options on health or safety have been identified during the impact assessment.

5.10. Administrative burden

Voluntary scenario

In the case of the Voluntary scenario, the monitoring will be performed by the Commission assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 19 of the Ecodesign Directive and stakeholders. This monitoring will be performed on the basis of the reports submitted by the Independent Inspector who will be assessing the compliance of the Signatories with the agreement. For that reason, the Inspector will collect and aggregate the data from the individual Signatories in accordance with Annex G to the agreement. Member States authorities will not be obliged to perform market surveillance actions. Furthermore, Member State market surveillance authorities will have access upon request to the background data in order to verify the compliance. Per Member State, the cost of extra hours of workload for the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee (and possibly the EU ENERGY STAR Board) in evaluating the annual monitoring reports and propositions for new VA target levels may be in the same order of magnitude, including market surveillance.

The administrative burden per individual manufacturer to participate in the VA is estimated in the order of € 5000- 10 000 as a contribution in the costs for e.g. the Independent Inspector and attending meetings of the Steering Committee.

As a conclusion, the Voluntary scenario will not significantly increase the administrative burden of the actors involved. For more information on monitoring and reporting under the agreement, see Chapters 4.2.3 and 7.

Ecodesign scenario

In the case of the Ecodesign option, the administrative burden will be higher than in the case of the Voluntary scenario as the verification of the compliance of imaging equipment with the applicable requirements will wholly relay on the national authorities. The administrative burden of Member States for mandatory measures would probably be similar to that of other ecodesign measures, i.e. in the order of € 0.5 million initial costs for setting up the legal framework plus –per Member State– the costs of continuous market surveillance, including spot checks. The costs of the latter will depend on the overall budget that each individual Member State is willing to spend on surveillance. Assuming e.g. testing of 50-100 models/year in total by the Member States, the testing and reporting costs will be in the area of € 0.25 – 0.5 million annually.

The costs of mandatory measures for industry will depend on the exact modality of the requirements. If it involves mandatory third-party certification, it can be expected that manufacturers will diminish their EU catalogue to save costs[100]. At the moment (Sept. 2012) there are 5111 different imaging equipment models registered in the EU ENERGY STAR database. These represent more than 90% of the market and thus 10% should be added. On the other hand, probably also 10% of the registered models are out of scope. So this means that around 5000 models should undergo third-party testing.

As a rough estimate, assuming that for bulk-testing it will be possible to find test-houses that will charge € 2000,-/model an initial market transformation would require € 10 million. Subsequently, assuming that a model stays in the catalogue for 4-5 years, the costs would be € 2 to € 2.5 million/year. Compared to the estimated turnover of the industry (say 50% of the market size of € 5 billion, see p. 7) this is 0.1%.

Note that the € 2000,- is estimated on the basis of the costs for other products that undergo simple duty cycle testing (e.g. ‘white goods’).

5.11. Impact on trade

The requirements proposed in this report are based on a technical, environmental and economic analysis. The process for establishing requirements for imaging equipment has been transparent. Competitive disadvantages for EU manufacturers exporting imaging equipment to third countries are not expected. The ENERGY STAR programme on which the agreement is based, is also applicable in many non-EU economies[101] and thus in all these countries the same criteria apply (see Annex 8).

5.12. Summary

The following table summarizes the findings of the savings in 2020 and 2030 and the accumulative savings 2011-2020 and 2011-2030. The projections between 2020 and 2030 have some degree of uncertainty, as already mentioned in the sales and stock paragraph in Chapter 2, and for this a simple extrapolation of the sales, electricity consumption, CO2 emissions and electricity costs savings have been used.

Table 6: Summary of the savings generated by imaging equipment under different options compared to the baseline BAU for 2020 and 2030. (The monetary savings are expressed in constant 2010 Euro.)

Total savings (Direct and Indirect paper energy excl. toner) 2020

Versus Baseline || Voluntary || Ecodesign

|| 2020 || 2011-2020 || 2020 || 2011-2020

Energy consumption (TWh) || || || ||

Direct || 7.9 || 71.2 || 5.6 || 26.0

Indirect || 7.1 || 59.2 || 6.5 || 24.9

Total || 15.0 || 130.4 || 12.1 || 50.9

|| || || ||

CO2 emissions (Mt) || || || ||

Direct || 3.0 || 27.0 || 2.1 || 7.9

Indirect || 1.1 || 8.9 || 1.0 || 3.7

Total || 4.1 || 35.9 || 3.1 || 11.6

|| || || ||

Costs saving excl. toner (in bln. Euro) [102] || || || ||

Direct || 2.11 || 16.2 || 1.5 || 6.4

Indirect || 7.12 || 59.2 || 6.5 || 24.9

Total || 9.24 || 75.4 || 8.0 || 31.3

Total savings (Direct and Indirect paper energy excl. toner) 2030

Versus Baseline || Voluntary || Ecodesign

|| 2030 || 2011-2030 || 2030 || 2011-2030

Energy consumption (TWh) || || || ||

Direct || 9.1 || 156.7 || 6.3 || 85.66

Indirect || 7.8 || 134.0 || 7.8 || 99.70

Total || 16.9 || 290.7 || 14.1 || 185.36

|| || || ||

CO2 emissions (Mt) || || || ||

Direct || 3.1 || 57.5 || 2.1 || 29.2

Indirect || 1.2 || 20.1 || 1.2 || 15.0

Total || 4.3 || 77.6 || 3.3 || 44.2

|| || || ||

Costs saving excl. toner (in bln. Euro) 75 || || || ||

Direct || 3.6 || 44.7 || 2.5 || 26.3

Indirect || 7.8 || 134.0 || 7.8 || 99.7

Total || 11.4 || 178.7 || 10.3 || 126.0

Note that in the table above, the baseline is a reference point to compare the two policy options, but may have some limitations as mentioned in paragraph 2.1. For the assessment of the contribution of options to the policy objectives, notably the ‘20-20-20’ target in 2020 with respect to 1990, the options have to be compared not to a baseline, but to the status quo in the reference years 1990-1995. Also the restrictions in data reliability should be taken into account.

Still, the conclusions on electric efficiency improvements are robust: The voluntary scenario can be expected to make a contribution of at least 25 TWh direct electricity saving (0.9 % of EU27 end-use electricity consumption in 2007) and thus 9.5 Mt CO2 of greenhouse gas emissions (0.2% of EU27 total in 2007). The Ecodesign scenario, i.e. mandatory measures, will deliver an estimated 2.5 TWh less, i.e. around 22.5 TWh and 8.6 Mt CO2.

For the savings on paper consumption, it has to be taken into account that the scenario calculations –both in the preparatory study and in the baseline presented in Chapter 2—are based on the ENERGY STAR duty cycle, which is typical of the US practice. In the EU, however, the average paper use per capita is significantly (30-40%) lower than in the US. It is not known with certainty that this also applies to the office paper market and thus ENERGY STAR duty cycle was chosen as at least a robust reference point. But anecdotal evidence based on CEPI industry statistics also seem to suggest that consumption of office paper (mostly UWF cut-size grade) in the EU is some 40% lower than in the US. As a result, also the absolute savings will probably be 40% lower.

As a result, it is cautiously estimated that duplexing and N-printing will contribute to savings of around 1 million tonnes (1 Mt) of office paper. This is an estimated 15-17% of the (lowered) estimated total EU office paper consumption and 1,25% of the total EU paper and cardboard consumption. The mandatory Ecodesign scenario is expected to score worse than the Voluntary scenario in this respect, but the inaccuracy of available data does not allow a quantitative differentiation. A saving of 1 Mt paper causes an indirect primary energy saving equivalent to 4 TWh electricity and 0.6 Mt CO2.

6. Comparing the options

Following the principle of proportionality in the analysis effort, the policy options: 'No new EU action', 'Mandatory energy labelling Regulation' and 'Combination of mandatory ecodesign Regulation and energy label Regulation' were discarded at an earlier phase of the analysis.

The analysis of option 'Voluntary' shows that this option optimally fulfils the objectives laid down in Chapter 3. As described in Chapter 4.2.3 it also meets the criteria of Annex VIII to the Ecodesign Directive. Recital 18, 19 and Article 15(3) of the Ecodesign Directive state that the priority shall be given to a self-regulation over a mandatory Regulation, if the former is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner then the latter. The analysis shows that this is the case in the imaging equipment sector.

The main reasons for which the Ecodesign option is not preferable over the Voluntary option are:

· It generates lower savings than the Voluntary option (see Chapter 5);

· It does not provide flexibility in introducing new, more stringent requirements. In particular, a review and revision of the Ecodesign Regulation every three years, like in the case of the ENERGY STAR criteria (see Annex 6) is highly unlikely.

· Costs of monitoring the compliance of imaging equipment with the applicable requirements (mainly costs of the market surveillance performed by national authorities) will be significantly higher than under the Voluntary option.

· Mandatory Regulation might affect agreements between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European Commission about the use of ENERGY STAR programme (see Chapter 4.3).

· As is also explained in COM (2011)337, the dynamics of this product sector is much larger than the dynamics that can reasonably be expected for mandatory measures and the flaws in the preparatory study, which was certainly not worse than many other studies of its kind, are an ulterior proof.

Furthermore, the Voluntary option implies:

· a contribution to the ‘20-20-20’ target over the 1990-2020 period of 25 TWh/a direct electricity saving through efficiency improvement and the equivalent of approximately 4 TWh/a electricity saving through indirect paper resources saving, making a total of 29 TWh/a (compare: 1,1 % of the EU’s total electricity consumption in 2007);

· a contribution to the ‘20-20-20’ target over the 1990-2020 period of 9.6 Mt CO2 eq./a direct (electricity) and 0.6 Mt CO2 eq./a (paper) abatement of greenhouse gases, making a total of 10.2 Mt CO2/a (0.2% of EU greenhouse gas emissions).

· a contribution to non-energy resources efficiency policy of over 1 million tonnes (1 Mt) reduced office paper consumption over the 1990-2020 period and a contribution to recycling and re-use.

· that the requirements of the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC, and in particular Recital 18 and Annex VIII are met,

· that there is compatibility and complementarity with the existing policy instruments,

· that there is no significant administrative burden for stakeholders,

· insignificant, if any, increase of the purchasing cost, which would be largely overcompensated by savings during the use-phase of the product,

· no significant impacts on the competitiveness of the industry and employment, and in particular in the SMEs sector due to the small absolute costs related to product re-design and re-assessment.

7. Monitoring and evaluation

The procedure for monitoring and reporting under the voluntary agreement is as follows:

· The Steering Committee will continuously follow progress and results of the VA and agree on practicalities, such as the collecting of the data from the individual Signatories by ERA. The Steering Committee will include the Signatories of the VA and will be opened to outside stakeholders (as observers).

· Signatories will annually submit to the Commission a report through the independent third-party. For quantified objectives the report will include detailed figures based on agreed measurement methods. The first reporting period started in January 2011 and ends in June 2011. In line with the provisions of the draft VA, by the latest 30 June 2011 each signatory shall provide the applicable information to the independent third-party. The independent third-party will then have 3 months to aggregate the results and present them to the Commission and stakeholders.

· The members of the Consultation Forum will be consulted to take stock and monitor the results of the VA. Member States wishing to verify the reported information will be granted access on demand to the background data and on that basis will be able perform products checks/tests.

· The Commission, assisted by the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee (in its advisory capacity), will, in the light of the received reports and input from the Consultation Forum, consider whether the objectives of the VA are met. The Commission will give special attention to the reporting and monitoring obligations laid down in the Ecodesign Directive, existing Commission guidelines and in the agreement itself. In particular, the Commission will regularly assess whether the provisions of the agreement and their application by the Signatories allow the Commission and stakeholders (including the national authorities) to effectively monitor the effectiveness of the agreement and meeting by the latter its objectives.

· If the Commission considers that the VA failed to achieve its objectives it will consider proposing a mandatory Regulation instead.[103].

· No significant impacts on the competitiveness of industry, and in particular SMEs.

· No market surveillance is needed due to the annual reports produced by Independent Inspector and the possibility to do annual analysis of the EU-ENERGY STAR database.

Annex Table of contents

Annex 1 Steering committee meetings. 48

Annex 2 Recycling and reuse of paper and ink. 58

Annex 3 Manufacturers in ENERGY STAR database. 59

Annex 4 EPA.. 62

Annex 5 Ecolabels. 63

Annex 6 ENERGY STAR analysis. 64

Annex 7 Research 2012. 75

Annex 8 ENERGY STAR countries. 84

Annex 9 Voluntary agreement 83

Annex 10 Scenario data. 106

Annex 11 Compliance VA criteria (art. 17) 105

Annex 1 Steering committee meetings

1st Steering Committee Meeting

16 June 2011

Meeting Minutes

Voluntary Industry Agreement to Improve the Energy Consumption of Imaging Equipment under the EuP Directive

Table of Contents

Meeting Details……………………………………………………………………………… 3

Agenda…………..…………………………………………………………………………… 3

Date and Venue……………………………………………………………………………… 3

Agreement of the Agenda………………………………………………………………… 4

Status and next steps towards official endorsement………………………………… 4

Formal Commitments……………………………………………………………………… 4

Legal Entity and Management…………………………………………………………… 5

Invitation to Tender………………………………………………………………………… 5

Publication of an FAQ……………………………………………………………………… 5

Q&A Session……………………………………………………………………………….... 6

Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………………..... 7

List of Participants of the 1st lot 4 VA Steering Committee…… 7

Meeting Details

Agenda

1. Introduction

2. Status and next steps towards official endorsement

a. Status of industry signatures

3. Electing of a Chair and Secretary of the Steering Committee

4. Organization of VA operations

5. Legal entity

a. Selection of an Independent Inspector

6. Publication of an FAQ for clarifications on VA commitments and operations

7. Next Steps – Steering Committee Meeting

8. Q&A session

9. Conclusions

Date and Venue

June 16, 2011

DIGITALEUROPE

Rue Joseph II, 20

B-1000, Brussels

Belgium

Agreement of the Agenda

The agenda was agreed.

Status and next steps towards official endorsement

A background on how the VA was created and developed was given by Pierre Sicsic (HP). On the basis of the Commission’s final report published in May 2009, the Consultation Forum decided in October 2009 that a VA would be the appropriate tool to address this product category already covered by ENERGY STAR. It was felt that the new VA would provide more visibility to the ENERGY STAR in Europe and reduce free riding. It was estimated that this VA would reduce the annual energy consumption of imaging equipment in the EU from ca. 11 TWh to between 5 and 6 TWh in 2020.

Following intense consultation with stakeholders, a final version of the VA was presented in February 2011 after which the Commission recommended industry to start the implementation.

Overall, the