Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 778 final} {SEC(2008) 2863}
Date: 2008-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, energy consumption, household electrical appliance, labelling

EN 

• EN 

 Error! Unknown document property name.  EN 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2862 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a  

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of 
energy and other resources by energy-related products 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 778 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2863} 

Page 1 of 89 

 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1.1. 
1.2. 
1.3. 

Executive summary............................................................................................................................................... 3 
Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties ................................................................. 6 
Organisation and timing ...................................................................................................................... 9 
Consultation and expertise................................................................................................................. 10 
Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board .......................................................................................... 11 
Section 2: Problem definition............................................................................................................................. 12 
2.1 Market and regulatory failures related to energy label - problems to be addressed ................................. 14 
2.2 Limits of the scope of the Directive ............................................................................................................ 17 
2.3 Limits of the functioning of the Directive ................................................................................................... 18 
2.4 Identifying the affected parties and the impacts therewith ......................................................................... 19 
2.5 Transposition and compliance ................................................................................................................... 20 
2.6 EU right to act: Treaty base and subsidiarity ............................................................................................ 20 
Section 3: Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 21 
Section 4: Policy options ..................................................................................................................................... 22 
4.1 Policy option 1: BaU - business as usual ................................................................................................... 22 
4.1.1 Policy option 1a: BaU -  no further action.......................................................................................... 23 
4.1.2 Policy option 1b: “BaU + 1”,  including optimal implementation of the current ELD....................... 23 
4.2 Policy option 2: Non-regulatory action...................................................................................................... 23 
4.3 Policy option 3: Amend (recast) the ELD, including broadened scope to energy-related products .......... 23 
4.4 Policy option 4: Repeal the ELD and implement energy labelling within the Ecodesign Directive .......... 24 
Section 5: Analysis of impacts............................................................................................................................ 24 
5.1 Policy option 1: BaU – business as usual .................................................................................................. 25 
5.1.1 Policy option 1a: BaU - no further action........................................................................................... 25 
5.1.2 Policy option 1b: “BaU + 1”, including optimal implementation of the current ELD........................ 26 
5.2 Policy option 2: Non-regulatory action...................................................................................................... 29 
5.3 Policy option 3: Amend (recast) the ELD, including broadened scope with energy-related products ...... 31 
5.3.1 Expected impacts from a broader scope of the ELD .......................................................................... 31 
5.3.2 Expected impacts from improved functioning of the ELD................................................................. 33 
5.4 Policy option 4: Repeal the ELD and implement energy labelling within the Ecodesign Directive .......... 36 
5.5 Administrative and transposition cost ........................................................................................................ 37 
Section 6: Comparing options ............................................................................................................................ 39 
Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................................... 43 
Annex 1: Product groups covered by the ELD and the implementing Directives......................................... 45 
Annex 2: EU policy instruments addressing energy efficiency of products ................................................... 46 
Annex 3: Product labels in the EU..................................................................................................................... 47 
Annex 4: Composition of energy label: label and strip.................................................................................... 50 
Annex 5: Content of an information fiche ........................................................................................................ 51 
Annex 6: Provision of product information in the energy label...................................................................... 53 
Annex 7: Energy labels adopted in third countries.......................................................................................... 54 
Annex 8: Energy labels adopted in other sectors ............................................................................................. 55 
Annex 9: Energy consumption in the EU and savings potential of appliances.............................................. 57 
Annex 10: Achievements of energy labelling and problems thereof............................................................... 61 
Annex 11: Energy efficient public procurement and incentives ..................................................................... 67 
Annex 12: Administrative and transposition cost ............................................................................................ 79 
Annex 13: Minutes of the stakeholder workshop ............................................................................................. 81 

2 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Impact Assessment accompanies the proposal for the recast of the 92/75/EEC “Energy 
Labelling  Directive  for  Household  Appliances”1  (hereafter  ELD).  The  recast  of  the  ELD  is 
one of the elements  of  the  Action  Plan on Sustainable Consumption  and Production and on 
Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP).  

The  ELD,  which  was  adopted  in  1992,  requires  retailers  to  display  a  comparative  label 
showing the level of energy consumption of household appliances to consumers at the point 
of sale. It is estimated that energy labelling has  contributed to annual  energy savings in the 
order of 3 Mtoe2 corresponding to emission reductions of some 14 Mt of Co2 annually over 
the period 1996-2004. 

by 

to  pull 

covered 

labelling 

in  contributing 

The  energy  label  is  compulsory  for  those 
products 
implementing 
measures  under  the  framework  ELD.  The 
scheme  has  been 
energy 
successful 
the 
market  of  household  appliances  towards 
more energy efficient products. It provides 
useful  and  comparable 
to 
consumers,  allowing  them  to  consider 
investing  in  better  performing  appliances 
in  order  to  realize  savings  in  taking  into 
account  the  running  costs  (mainly  energy 
consumption in use). 

information 

on 

It also helps manufacturers to position their 
products  on  the  market  and  get  some 
for 
payback 
introducing  better  and  more  innovative 
appliances.  The 
therefore 
considered  as  a  win-win  instrument  for 
consumers, industry and the environment.  

investments 

scheme 

their 

is 

As  announced  in  the  Action  Plan  on 
Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production 
and  on  Sustainable 
Industrial  Policy 
(SCP/SIP),  the  ELD  together  with  the 
Ecodesign  Directive  could  deliver  more 
reduction  of 
savings 

in  energy  and 

environmental impacts, if extended to all energy-related product groups (products that have an 
impact on energy consumption during use). 

1  Council  Directive  92/75/EEC  of  22  September  1992  on  the  indication  by  labelling  and  standard  product 

information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances. 

2  This  does  not  take  into  account  energy  savings  from  related  self  commitments  by  Ceced  (white  goods)  and 

Eicta (TVs)  

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
The  current  ELD  is  a  framework  that  mandates  the  Commission  (assisted  by  a  Regulatory 
Committee) to adopt labelling implementing measures for specific household appliances3. For 
these, an upgrade of the existing labels is being prepared for adoption in 2009 and 2010. 

The impact assessment of the SCP/SIP has shown that the limited scope of the ELD restricts 
its potential to further mitigate climate change and contribute to the EU-wide target of 20% 
energy  efficiency  gains  by  2020  and  achieve  the  goals  of  sustainable  production  and 
consumption. This impact assessment report therefore analyses further whether the scope and 
functioning  of  the  ELD  can  be  reinforced,  how  this  can  be  done  and  what  impacts  it  could 
have. However, as the ELD is a framework Directive with no direct impact on products, the 
environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  can  only  be  quantified  in  detail  for  those 
implementing  measures  to  be  adopted  on  specific  products.  Accordingly,  the  potential 
advantages and disadvantages of the possible revision are considered in the light of a number 
of  selected  priority  product  groups  with  significant  environmental  impacts  and  for  which 
labelling appears to be a relevant policy instrument. 

For the functioning of the ELD, the aim is to seek increased effectiveness of the ELD and its 
implementing measures while reducing the administrative burden, and explore the use of ELD 
as a framework for harmonised public procurement and incentives in the Internal Market. 

Four policy options are considered as follows: 

1)  No policy change, with two sub-options: 

1a)  BaU - business as usual,  
1b)  BaU + 1 - full implementation of the current ELD scope. 

(2) Non-regulatory action. 
(3) Amend the Directive - full implementation of the current ELD scope, plus 
coverage of all energy-related products, excluding means of transport. 

(4) Repeal the Directive and implement its provisions within the Ecodesign Directive - 
full implementation of the current ELD scope, plus coverage of all energy-related 
products, excluding means of transport.   

It is estimated that the policy option 1b (fully implement the current framework) could lead 
to,  based  on  the  considered  priority  appliances,  savings  of  some  22  Mtoe  by  2020, 
corresponding to emission savings of about 65 Mt of CO2. More than half of these savings 
would  come  from  the  heating  and  water  heating  appliances  alone,  which  have  not  yet  been 
addressed  under  the  ELD.  The  rest  of  the  savings  would  come  from  the  upgrading  of  the 
existing eight measures, and from a new measure on televisions.  

Policy  option  2  (voluntary  agreements/self  commitments)  would  have  advantages  in  adding 
little  administrative  burden  to  the  business  and  administrations,  depending  on  the  way  of 
implementing  the  non-regulatory  action,  but  would  fully  rely  on  the  feasibility  and 
willingness  from  industry,  which  has  rejected  this  option  (CECED4  and  EICTA5).  The 
capacity of this policy option to contribute to further energy savings was considered marginal 
at best. 

Policy  option  3  (fully  exploit  current  framework  and  extend  the  scope  to  all  energy-related 
products) involves some administrative burden for the recast but would save some €4 million 

3 Refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, washing machines, driers and their combinations, dishwashers, 
ovens, water heaters and hot-water storage appliances, lighting sources and air-conditioning appliances. 

4 European Committee of Manufacturers of Domestic Equipment 
5 European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in  transposition  costs  for  every  upgraded  or  newly  developed  implementing  measure  if 
implementing  Directives  were  replaced  by  implementing  Regulations.  It  is  estimated  that 
broadening the scope of the ELD to energy-related products could lead to additional savings 
of some 27 Mtoe by 20206, corresponding to emission reduction of close to 80 Mt of CO2 in 
comparison  to  BaU.  This  represents  additional  savings  of  some  5  Mtoe  against  the  policy 
option BaU +1 alone from the three priority product groups considered (commercial heating 
and  refrigeration  and  windows).  More  precise  knowledge  on  the  savings  potential  of  these 
products  will  be  available  from  the  Ecodesign  preparatory  studies  followed  by  product 
specific  impact  assessments.  Additional  changes  like  introducing  provisions  on  the  legal 
protection  of  the  use  of  the  label,  clarifying  information  requirements  and  introducing  a 
framework for public procurement and incentives would further reinforce the effectiveness of 
the scheme as well as increase the savings. 

Policy  option  4,  repeal  the  ELD  and  implement  energy  labelling  within  the  Ecodesign 
Directive,  could  lead  in  theory  to  the  same  level  of  savings  as  policy  option  3  and  would 
reduce the number of regulatory instruments, but could hardly be considered as simplification. 
This is due to the different nature of the legal instruments: the Ecodesign Directive bans the 
less  performing  products  regarding  their  global  environmental  performance  focusing  on  all 
environmental aspects throughout the lifecycle of the product. The ELD provides an energy 
label showing to consumers the energy efficiency performance of the product during the use 
phase (and relevant use of other resources (like water) where relevant).  

The analysis and comparison of the policy options indicates that the options 1b and 3 are the 
most  cost-efficient  and  suitable  options  with  strongest  stakeholder  support  to  achieve  the 
policy objectives. 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  is  proposed  in  the  framework  of  Action  Plan  on  Sustainable 
Consumption  and  Production  and  Sustainable  Industrial  Policy  in  coordination  with 
Ecodesign, Ecolabel and other related instruments. 

6 The figure is composed of the estimated 22 Mtoe savings by 2020 from the full implementation of the ELD and 
of some 5 Mtoe additional savings from the broadening on the scope, based on considerations on three priority 
product groups (windows, commercial refrigeration and heating appliances).  

5 

 
 
                                                 
SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The Energy Labelling Directive - ELD 
This  Impact  Assessment  accompanies  the  proposal  for  the  amendment  of  the  Energy 
Labelling Directive for household appliances. This framework directive provides harmonised 
EU-wide rules for energy labelling of household appliances as  described  in  the  Article 1 of 
the Directive.  

The purpose of the ELD is two-fold. It informs potential purchasers of the energy (and other 
resources  such  as  water)  consumption  of  the  various  appliances  on  offer,  so  consumers  can 
take account of this and of the resultant running costs before making purchase decisions. The 
Directive  also  incites  manufacturers  to  produce  more  energy  efficient  appliances.  This 
mechanism  requires  some  basic  criteria  to  be  fulfilled  in  order  to  be  effective  and  efficient. 
The main basic criteria are as follows7:  

•  The scheme must be uniform. If there are a variety of differing designs of labels, for 
the same type of appliance in particular, consumers may be confused when comparing 
rival appliances and may ignore the information altogether. 

•  The  scheme  must  be comprehensive; all appliances of a given type must be labelled 

otherwise labelled products may be put at a disadvantage. 

•  The label and the fiche8 must be as clear and as simple as possible, while conveying as 

much relevant information as possible from the point of view of the customer. 

•  The scheme should be credible with information that can be trusted. 
•  The scheme should be flexible and dynamic. In particular it should allow for updating 
in  the  light  of  market  developments  and  in  particular  improved  efficiency  of 
appliances.  

•  The scheme should be as simple to run as possible and lead to the minimum possible 

cost for those involved (manufacturers, retailers, Member States). 

•  Finally, the scheme should be harmonized at the level of the Internal Market to avoid 
any barriers to trade between Member States in respect to energy labelling and product 
information. 

These  criteria  are  very  important  in  assuring  that  information  asymmetries  and  bounded 
rationality are avoided. The scheme must allow end-users to easily compare which product is 
more resource efficient during its use phase than another, thus avoiding buying products that 
are  cheaper  at  the  purchase  but  more  expensive  over  their  life  cycle.  Providing  enough 
information is not enough; the label must provide information that can easily be understood 
even  with  a  quick  look  and  it  must  focus  on  issues  of  most  interest  for  buyers.  Complex 
information can be provided in product documentation for more demanding consumers.   

As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum to the ELD, various surveys and the existing 
Ecodesign  studies9  have  shown  that  the  energy  consumption  of  domestic  appliances  varies 

7 Explanatory memorandum for the proposal for a Council Directive on the indication by labelling and standard 
product information of the consumption of energy and other resources of household appliances, 20 March 1991. 
8  'Product  information  fiche'  is  an  information  fiche  containing  relevant  product  information  such  as  energy 
consumption, consumption  of  filters  in  average  use,  ventilation  and  air flow  performance,  etc  in  the  case  of  a 
cooker hood (see Annex 6). The 'label', which is displayed on products in shops, is composed of a background 
label with basic energy information and a strip that includes the values for this information (e.g. in the case of 
cooker  hoods,  logo  and  model  of  the  hood,  the  'A'  class,  values  for  filter  efficiency  etc).  See  illustrations  in 
Annexes 3, 4 and 6. 
9 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm 

6 

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
                                                 
widely for similar functionalities, and that a more efficient appliance is not necessarily more 
expensive to purchase. Thus, if potential purchasers were better informed, they would tend to 
buy appliances which – for a given performance - were more energy efficient, cost less to run, 
and  have  a  better  environmental  footprint.  This  would,  through  the  normal  competitive 
process, put considerable pressure on manufacturers to increase their efforts to produce more 
efficient  appliances,  which  has  happened  in  the  case  of  those  appliances  on  which 
implementing measures have been in force for some time10. However, at present customers do 
receive  this  information  only  on  some  products  covered  by  (eight)  existing  implementing 
Directives. As a result, for most products on the market, purchasers cannot easily identify the 
better performing ones and the market fails to encourage the manufacturers of producing such 
appliances.  

Considering that the energy label can contribute to making the "right" purchasing decision but 
is not the only element guiding consumer decision to buy a particular product, it is difficult to 
assess  the  impact  of  a  labelling  information  scheme  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  appliances. 
The background study estimates that the ELD would have helped to reach savings of some 3 
Mtoe per year by 2020, corresponding to annual emission reduction of some 14 Mt of CO2 
(for further details, see Annex 10). 

The  Article  1  of  the  ELD  covers  a  selected  number  of  household  appliances,  as  shown  in 
Annex 1. The Article 1 also allows the Commission, assisted by a Committee, to add further 
household  appliances  to  this  list.  However,  Art.  1  does  not  allow  the  extension  of  scope  to 
non-household  appliances.  This  excludes  numerous  products  for  which  a  labelling  scheme 
could be appropriate, such as energy-using products for commercial and industrial sectors, as 
well  as  energy-related  products  which  do  not  consume  energy  but  allow  for  energy 
conservation (e.g. window glazing and frames). 

An  important  aspect  of  the  functioning  of  an  energy  labelling  scheme  is  the  synergy, 
complementarities and possible overlap with other EU labelling instruments on products. The 
Annex  2  illustrates  the  complementarities  and  synergies  between  Ecodesign,  Ecolabel  and 
Energy  Labelling.  While  Ecodesign  cuts  the  less  efficient  products  from  the  market,  the 
voluntary  Ecolabel  grants  a  'best  in  class'  label  for  the  upper  end  products  (corresponding 
normally to an 'A' class in the energy labelling classification). Energy labelling complements 
the picture in providing compulsory comparative information on energy performance between 
these two extremes. It also pushes manufacturers to invest on more efficient products in order 
to shorten the path from R&D to products mature for markets.   

Annex 2 describes the coverage of various labelling instruments, in particular in between the 
energy-using  and  non-energy  using  products.  The  revision  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  is 
heading  towards  the  coverage  of  more  products.  Both  the  Ecodesign  Directive  and  the 
Ecolabel address the significant environmental aspects over the life cycle of a product while 
energy labelling focuses on 80-90% of the environmental impacts of energy-using products, 
that is, energy consumption and consumption of consumables in the use phase. Together these 
instruments contribute to policy coherence in the wider picture of sustainable energy policies.   

10 See Annex 10. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Procedural steps for adopting Energy Labelling implementing Directives 
Before the Commission prepares an implementing directive it conducts a technical economic 
study  which  looks  into  the  range  of  performances  available  among  products  on  the  market 
offering  similar  functionalities,  the  potential  for  improvement  and  the  related  costs.  This 
phase  is  fully  coordinated  with  the  Ecodesign  process  in  which  the  same  preparatory  study 
provides  the  necessary  technical  analysis  for  both  minimum  efficiency  performance 
requirements  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive  and  for  a  possible  labelling  scheme  under  the 
ELD  (where  the  display  of  a  label  showing  the  efficiency  performance  of  the  product  in 
question  can  influence  the  purchase  decision  and  thereby  pull  the  market  towards  more 
efficient products). Extensive stakeholder consultation takes place during preparatory studies 
in  form  of  bilateral  meetings with  directly  affected  stakeholders,  complemented  with  public 
stakeholder consultation through the Internet and a dedicated stakeholder workshop.  

After impact assessment and interservice consultation, the Commission gathers the opinion of 
the ELD Committee operating under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny11 by the European 
Parliament,  and  the  Commission  adopts  the  Implementing  Directive  following  the  normal 
procedures.  Once  adopted  by  the  Commission  and  after  publication  in  the  Official  Journal, 
Member States must transpose the implementing Directive into national legislation, which the 
Commission  must  monitor  and  take  appropriate  action  in  the  case  of  late  or  non-compliant 
transposition by the Member States.  

Like  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive,  the  Commission  is  involved  in  formal  regulatory 
dialogue with its main trading partners and with international organisations on issues such as 
the  harmonization  of  measurement  methods/standards,  benchmarking  and  other  elements 
directly  linked  to  the  setting  of  Implementing  Directives.  The  development  of  measures  is 
also  discussed  with  relevant  ministries  from  third  countries  in  the  frame  of  regulatory 
cooperation.  Manufacturers  from  outside  the  EU  are  encouraged  to  actively  provide  input 
from the very beginning of the process, when preparatory studies are carried out, and can fully 
participate in the consultation process. 

The current impact assessment 
The  Action  Plan  on  Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  and  on  Sustainable  Industrial 
Policy  (SCP/SIP)  is  a  joint  initiative  of  DG  ENTR,  ENV  and  TREN  proposing  actions  to 
address market and regulatory failures which affect the environmental performance of a large 
number  of  products  in  Europe.  The  main  element  of  the  SCP/SIP  is  an  integrated  product 
policy of which the ELD is one building block.  

The revised Ecodesign Directive is to be extended to cover all energy-related products. This 
impact  assessment  will  consider  similar  extension  to  the  ELD.  By  the  Ecodesign  Directive, 
minimum  requirements  will  be  set  for  products  with  significant  environmental  impacts, 
focusing  on  key  environmental  aspects.  To  provide  markets  with  information  on  best 
performing products, advanced benchmarks of environmental performance will be identified. 
Periodic reviews of minimum requirements and advanced benchmarks will take place to adapt 
them to technological change and provide businesses with a long-term perspective of future 
regulatory  environment.  Apart  from  considering  the  extension  of  the  ELD  to  energy-related 
products, this impact assessment also considers how the energy efficiency criteria under the 
ELD  could  be  used  to  establish  a  harmonised  base  for  public  procurement  and  incentives 
provided by the EU and its Member States. This would overcome the current fragmentation of 
stimuli and incentives in the Internal Market12.  

12 On the interaction between Ecodesign, Ecolabel and Energy Labelling, see Annex 2. 

8 

 
 
 
    
 
                                                 
 
This  impact  assessment  is  one  layer  in  the  analytical  framework  of  three  levels  of  impact 
assessments related to product policy. The impact assessment of the Action Plan focused on 
delimiting the problem definition and the remaining problems. In the Impact Assessment of 
the  Action  Plan  it  was  stated  that  the  Action  Plan  would  only  look  at  existing  policy 
instruments and how to coordinate them better. The main conclusion of the impact assessment 
of the Action Plan was that a mandatory approach could solve the identified market failures. 
Moreover,  the  impact  assessment  of  the  action  plan  concluded  that  a  specific  impact 
assessment was needed to look at the extension of the scope of the ELD. 

This  impact  assessment  focuses  on  the  identification  of  the  need  for  and  the  most  adequate 
extension  of  the  scope  of  the  ELD.  Further  impact  assessments  will  identify  the  particular 
problems  and  analyse  the  environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  when  preparing 
implementing measures for the setting of labelling requirements on specific products.  

This impact assessment does not look at national or regional impacts, as energy labelling does 
not  have  impact  on  affordability  (in  contrary  to  e.g.  minimum  requirements  set  within  the 
Ecodesign Directive). Energy labelling provides comparative information on products offered 
on the market guiding the consumer towards the most economic choices over the life time of 
the  product;  energy  label  does  not  cut  off  products  with  cheaper  purchase  prices  from  the 
market.  The  exception  of  setting  of  minimum  requirements  for  public  procurement  and/or 
incentives by Member States will be looked at in Annex 11 and in relevant chapters, such as 
5.4.2. 

This document is prepared as a basis for comments and does not prejudge the final form of 
any decision to be taken by the Commission. Moreover, all product categories mentioned in 
this document are included for analytical purposes only and do not prejudge any decision on 
the  setting  of  labelling  requirements  on  any  products.  Figures  and  numbers  quoted  in  this 
Impact Assessment are of an indicative nature.  

Organisation and timing  

1.1. 
The  recast  (amendment)  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  92/75/EEC13  is  included  in  the 
Commission's rolling simplification  programme Better Regulation: Simplification Strategy14. 
This is based on the Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008 (CLWP) and on the 
Energy Efficiency Action Plan15 calling for a possible recast of the ELD. It was confirmed in the 
recent SCP/SIP Action Plan. 

Commission's  minimum  standards  for  stakeholder  consultation  were  respected,  as  described 
in  chapters  1.1  and  1.2.  For  the  purpose  of  the  impact  assessment  an  inter-service  steering 
group (ISSG) was created with invitations to ENV, SANCO, SG, ECFIN, ENTR, MARKT, 
LS, INFSO, COMP, and TRADE. The start-up ISSG meeting took place on 9 November 2007 
with  effective  participation  of  ENV,  SANCO,  SJ,  ENTR,  and  ECFIN.  The  first  meeting 
discussed  and  agreed  on  the  process  and  on  what  should  be  the  content  of  the  impact 
assessment study and the Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD) for consultation of 
stakeholders. Three subsequent ISSG consultations took place before submitting the IA report 
to  the  IAB  (Consultation  on  the  draft  stakeholder  consultation  document  on  7  December 

13  Council  Directive  92/75/EEC  of  22  September  1992  on  the  indication  by  labelling  and  standard  product 
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances. 
14 COM (2005) 535 final of 25.10.2005. 
15 COM (2006) 545 final of 19.10.2006. 

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2007, first consultation on the draft IA report on 11 March 2008 and a second consultation on 
the draft IA report on 24 April 2008).   

On  20  December  2007,  the  CSWD  and  the  background  study  were  published  on  the 
Commission's  impact  assessment  website  and  on  relevant  EUROPA  websites,  such  as 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation 
for  a  public 
Internet consultation. The final deadline for comments was 22 February 2008. Additionally, a 
stakeholder consultation workshop took place on 8 February 2008. Summaries of the Internet 
consultation and of the stakeholder meeting were published on the above web sites. 

Consultation and expertise  

1.2. 
DG  TREN  launched  an  external  study  (30.07.2007  –  19.10.2007)  in  support  to  the  IA  with 
Europe Economics, Fraunhofer-ISI with BSR Sustainability and FfE. The study reviewed the 
achievements of energy labelling under the present ELD and looked at areas of improvement 
by carrying out technical analyses on selected energy-using (boilers and electric motors) and 
non-energy  using  but  energy-related  products  (windows  and  tyres)  in  order  to  identify  the 
potential for further energy efficiency gains, including interviews of stakeholders and of seven 
Member States representatives. The study also included a literature review. Finally, the study 
reviewed and summarised the options for possible future action. The main findings from the 
stakeholder interviews can be summarised as follows: 

Highest importance was given to:  

•  broadening the scope of the directive to additional household products, such as boilers 
or TVs, and to non-household appliances, such as motors (above 90% of stakeholders 
considered this very important or important16): 

•  upgrading the requirements of the existing implementing Directives (above 90%):  
•  use Regulations as implementing tools instead of Directives (close to 80%). 

Medium level importance was given to: 

•  stricter  enforcement  of  the  requirements  of  the  implementing  measures  (above  60% 

considered high or medium priority). 

•  provision of additional information in the label useful to consumers (about 50%)  
• 

including  additional  product  information  into  the  label,  e.g.  annual  cost  of  energy 
consumption or annual CO2 emissions (about 50%); 
legal protection of the label (about 50%). 

• 

Stakeholder  consultation  workshop  on  8  February  2008    was  attended  by  all  relevant 
stakeholders,  including  members  of  the  ELD  Regulatory  Committee  and  European 
associations representing the industry, retailers, consumers and environmental NGOs (for the 
CSWD,  minutes  of  the  workshop  and  summary  results  of  the  consultation,  see  the 
Commission ELD website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation). 

Consultation  in  form  of  a  workshop  turned  to  be  very  valuable,  as  it  allowed  an  open 
discussion  on  the  pros  and  cons  related  to  different  stakeholders  groups,  in  particular  to 
consumers,  retailers,  manufacturers  and  administrations.  The  meeting  discussion  helped 
stakeholders  to  better  understand  each  others  concerns.  Consequently,  the  results  of  the 

16 Options were considered in three 'classes': high, medium or low priority. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
consultation  were  refined  and  more  comprehensive  compared  with  the  results  of  the 
background study, although the basic trend of the replies was the same.  

The  minutes  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  workshop,  summary  results  of  the  web-based 
consultation  and  stakeholder  comments  were  published  on  EUROPA.  In  total,  66  written 
stakeholder  comments  were  received  on  the  Internet  consultation  covering  Member  States, 
European  Associations  and  groupings,  individual  industry,  national  governments  and  other 
groupings.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  the  conclusions  listed  hereafter  are  supported  by  all 
stakeholders consulted. 

The main results of this stakeholder consultation were that:   

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

the  scope  of  the  labelling  should  be  broadened  beyond  household  appliances  to  all 
energy-using appliances; 
the  scope  of  the  labelling  should  not  be  broadened  to  non-energy  using  products, 
except those which are 'energy relevant', that is, which allow energy conservation (e.g. 
window glazing and frames); 
the label should remain simple, relate to the consumption of energy in use  and not be 
mixed  with  other  environmental  parameters  during  the  life-cycle  of  a  product,  while 
keeping the possibility to include also additional information relevant to consumers on 
the products' performance); 
implementation through Regulations rather than Directives was considered to be more 
efficient; 
tighter tolerances in test standards and reinforced market surveillance were requested; 
reinforce  provision  of  energy  labels  in  the  context  of  other  type  of  sales  and 
advertising, such as websites, newspapers, TV ads and other media; 
legal  protection  of  the  label  against  abusive  voluntary  use  was  seen  beneficial,  if  it 
would not lead to royalty costs. 

The  above  stakeholder  input  from  the  background  study,  stakeholder  consultation  meeting 
and  the  stakeholder  comments  received  through  the  web  were  integrated  into  this  report  as 
described in the sections below.   

The joint internet stakeholder consultation on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) 
and on Sustainable Industrial Policy (Sustainable Industrial Policy launched in 2007 by ENV 
and  ENTR  is  also  relevant  for  this  IA.  In  particular  stakeholders  highlighted  the  role  of 
relevant  Community  legislation  to  reinforce  the  potential  of  public  incentives  and  public 
procurement for the deployment of energy efficient and green products: 

•  34% of stakeholders found public procurement and incentives important; 
•  29% found fiscal incentives, subsidies and trading schemes important; 
•  82%  found  it  was  important  that  public  procurement  concentrate  on  green  products, 

even if they were more expensive; 

•  60% felt green procurement should be mandatory. 

Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board  

1.3. 
This  impact  assessment  report  takes  into  account  the  opinions  of  the  Impact  Assessment 
Board dated 4 June and 25 July 2008 as follows: 

•  Problem  analysis  has  been  further  elaborated  and  presented  in  the  context  of  the 
introduction  of  the  SCP/SIP  and  the  revision  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive.  More 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
explanation has been provided on why the potential of the current ELD has not been 
fully  exploited  in  the  past.  Market  failure  in  the  field  of  public  procurement  and 
incentives  has  been  identified  and  the  potential  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  to 
tackle this failure have been addressed. 

•  Objectives have been revised in relation to the reworked problem analysis and specific 

objectives are related directly to the problems identified. 

•  The  range  of  policy  options  have  been  widened  in  broadening  the  BaU  to  two  sub-
options in order to more widely consider different options, including the use of latest 
EC Baseline scenario figures.  

•  The analysis of the impacts focuses on how the options can solve the identified market 
and  regulatory  failures  and  the  options  are  compared  based  on  effectiveness, 
efficiency and consistency. 

•  Structure and content of the report have been aligned with the impact assessments on 

the Communication of SCP/SIP and the Ecodesign Directive. 

Upon the second opinion,  

•  The problem definition was further clarified and policy objectives were complemented 
with  operational  objectives,  including  an  explanation  on  the  role  of  the  Framework 
Directive and its implementing measures in relation to the specific objectives. 

•  Explanation on the coherence of the objectives with the SIP/SCP was fine-tuned and 
reasoning on the option of repealing the Directive was reinforced in the context of the 
past achievements. 

•  Ecodesign Directive as an alternative implementing mechanism and the assessment of 
the impacts were further dealt with in relevant chapters and the benefits of considering 
the two BaU sub-options were spelt out. 

•  Monitoring and evaluation was refined with notions on timelines and further details on 
particular stakeholder positions were added, including crosschecking the presentation 
of the document.     

SECTION 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION 

As discussed in the impact assessment of the SCP/SIP Action Plan and restated in the IA on 
the  amendment  of  Directive  2005/32/EC,  products  can  have  negative  impacts  on  the 
environment  depending  on  how  they  are  made,  used  and  disposed.  The  SCP/SIP  impact 
assessment identified several market failures  and  imperfections, which prevent society  from 
reaching the social optimum17. The most important market failures were summarised in the IA 
on 2005/32/EC as: 

•  Environmental  externalities 

the  negative 
environmental  impacts  of  the  production  or  consumption  of  products  leads  consumers  to 
choices that do not necessarily act in the interest of the society. 

that  result  from  prices  not  reflecting 

•  Information  asymmetries  that  result  from  high  transaction  costs  for  consumers  to  obtain 
relevant  information  on  product  characteristics.  Consumers  can  often  not  tell  whether  a 
product  is  more  resource  efficient  during  its  use  phase  than  another  one,  thus  consumers 
are buying products that are cheaper at the purchase but more expensive over the life cycle. 

•  Bounded  rationality  explaining  why  even  well-informed  consumers  do  not  act  rationally 
when  making  purchasing  decisions.  Even  if  consumers  have  sufficient  information,  they 
can  be  faced  with  high  upfront  costs  when  buying  a  more  performing  product,  while  the 

17 

Impact Assessment of the SCP/SIP Action Plan, EC (2008) forthcoming. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
benefits accrue over a longer period of time (i.e. during its use-phase). Consumers may not 
take into account the use cost of a product but focus short-sightedly on the purchase price 
only.  

•  Principal-agent  problems  that  occur  where  there  is  a  misalignment  of  incentives  of  those 
purchasing the product (e.g. landlord or industrial plant) and those using it (e.g. tenant or 
provider to an industrial plant). 

The  above  market  failures  have  negative  effects  on  development  of  better  performing 
products  since  they  limit  the  demand  for  products  with  lower  environmental  impacts.  The 
market  failures  result  in  products  that  are  not  designed  such  that  environmental  impacts  of 
products  over  their  life  cycle  are  optimal.  The  Ecodesign  preparatory  studies  show  that 
typically  more  than  90%  of  the  life  cycle  environmental  impacts  take  place  during  the  use 
phase18.  

Globally,  combating  information  asymmetries  through  energy  efficiency  measures  seems 
possible  at  a  negative  cost.  The  2006  status  report  on  energy  consumption  and  efficiency 
trends prepared for the Commission commented that: 

“Most of the energy efficiency measures are cost-effective. This means that they will result in 
net  money  savings  for  end-users,  as  the  reduced  electricity  cost  over  the  life  time  of  the 
appliances will outweigh the additional purchasing cost for a more efficient model. In many 
cases there is an increase in manufacturing cost to manufacturers, which can be passed on to 
the users or can be compensated by productivity gains (and in many cases will decrease over 
time when the most efficient components will be mass produced). Over the last ten years, the 
EU  white  goods  appliances  cost  less  and  the  efficiency  has  improved,  while  keeping  the 
industry sector healthy (though with limited margin) and despite fears by manufacturers that 
the policy action introduced in the 90ies could have had a negative impact. Instead the "white 
goods" industry sector acknowledges the added value of the label as a means to differentiate 
products  on  the  market.  Overall  it  can  be  concluded  that  energy  efficiency  measures  and  in 
particular  minimum  requirements  and  labels  are  cost  effective  for  society  and  reduce  CO2 
emissions at a negative cost.”19  

The uptake of energy efficient products requires consumer and user awareness as well as the 
provision  of  clear  and  easily  understandable  information  from  manufacturers  and  retailers.  
Such  information  is  unlikely  to  be  provided  in  the  form  and  on  the  scale  required  without 
some degree  of  government  intervention, although this information is normally provided by 
manufacturers  in  their  product  documentation  and  catalogues  in  any  case.  An  important 
question is on how to best package and provide this information to be useful, reliable, credible 
and easy-to-understand for consumers. 

Energy  consumption  in  use  is  not  the  only  environmental  impact  of  products.  However  an 
EIPRO  study20  on  environmental  impact  of  products  identified  that  energy  consumption  in 
use is the single most important factor for energy-using products. Broadening the focus from 
energy and resource efficiency in use phase to all significant environmental impacts over the 
life  cycle  of  the  product  would  risk  increasing  information  asymmetries  in  providing  more 

18 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  
19 Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European Union - Status report 2006, Bertoldi 
and Atanasiu, 2007. 
20  Environmental  impact  of  products  (EIPRO);  analysis  of  the  life-cycle  environmental  impacts  related  to  the 
final  consumption  of  the  EU-25.  Summary  of  the  final  report  by  DG  Environment  and  DG  Joint  Research 
Centre, May 2006. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
information on complex environmental impacts over the life cycle of the product. Given that 
the present focus of the ELD on energy and resource already tackles typically more than 90% 
of  the  environmental  impacts  of  energy-using  products,  broadening  of  the  focus  at  the 
expense of the clarity of information is considered inappropriate. When consulted specifically 
on  this  issue,  all  stakeholders,  including  consumer  associations  and  environmental  NGOs, 
were in favour of, at least for the coming years, a focus on the consumption of resources in 
use, thereby guiding consumers on the cost of running an appliance. 

Experience shows that customer purchase decision can be influenced with clear and easy-to-
understand information, if it focuses on consumers' primary interest, the cost of the product. 
While  the  purchase  price  of  a  product  is  a  trivial  way  to  compare  costs  between  products, 
adding life cycle considerations or externalities into the picture tends to confuse consumers. 
The way to convey information under the ELD has been to provide it in a comparative way 
showing  not  only  the  best  but  also  the  worst  appliances  in  terms  of  operating  cost.  It  is 
important  to  keep  this  simplicity  of  the  message  in  order  to  avoid  providing  too  complex 
information  for  consumers.  For  example,  in  a  recent  survey21,  71%  of  the  retail  consumers 
interviewed confirmed that they would be willing to use energy-efficient appliances in order 
to  stop  climate  change  against  only  12%,  who  would  be  willing  to  purchase  carbon 
offsets/credits. The results are similar in third countries such as India, China or Brazil. This 
may illustrate a main reason why the EU energy label has been copied more or less identically 
by so many third countries rather than been broadened to include all environmental impacts 
over the whole life cycle of the product. Similarly, out of global retail consumers only 21% 
expressed willingness to pay for products with environmental and social benefits.   

2.1 Market and regulatory failures related to energy label - problems to be addressed  

The  market  failures  discussed  under  chapter  on  'Problem  definition'  apply  also  on  energy 
labelling.  A  range  of  policies  is  in  place  to  improve  the  energy  and  environmental 
performance  of  products22.  These  are  for  example  the  Ecodesign  (EuP)  Directive23  which 
establishes a framework for setting Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products while 
ensuring  free  movements  of  products  within  the  Internal  Market,  taking  a  life-cycle 
perspective.  A  number  of  other  legislations  address  specific  aspects  of  the  life-cycle  of 
products, such as in particular waste or hazardous substances while the Energy Performance 
of  Buildings  Directive24  addresses  the  system  efficiency  in  buildings  through  installation 
requirements.  

The  labelling  schemes  set  by  the  ELD25,  the  Energy  Star  Regulation26,  the  Ecolabel 
Regulation27  and  other  schemes  developed  by  Member  States,  retailers  and  other  economic 
operators provide consumers with information on the energy and environmental performance 

21 Addressing consumer concerns about climate change, Sheila M. J. Bonini, Greg Hintz and Lenny T. 
Mendonca, McKinsey Quartely, March 2008. 
22  As  identified  e.g.  in  the  impact  assessments  of  the  Action  Plan  SCP/SIP  and  Ecodesign  Directive,  and  the 
subsequent Action Plan on SCP/SIP. 
23 Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the setting 
of Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, OJ L 101, 22.7.2005, p.29-58. 
24 Directive 2002/91/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy 
performance of buildings. 
25 Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product 
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances, OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, 
p.16-19. 
26 Regulation (EC) 106/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  15 January 2008 on a 
Community energy efficiency labelling programme for office equipment, OJ L 39, of 13.02.2008, p. 1–7. 
27 Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised 
Community eco-label award scheme, OJ L 237, 20.9.2000, p. 1-8. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
of products. Incentives and public procurement are being implemented by Member States to 
stimulate  the  better  performance  of  products.  The  Energy  Star  Regulation  also  obliges  EU 
institutions and Member State authorities to purchase office equipment which meet minimum 
levels of energy efficiency. 

Most product legislation addresses specific aspects of a product’s life-cycle and not all the life 
cycle aspects. While the Ecodesign Directive and the Eco-label take a life-cycle perspective, 
in  the  case  of  energy-using  products,  studies  show  that  typically  more  than  90%  of  the  life 
cycle environmental impacts take place during the use phase28.  

Information to consumers under EU policy focuses on energy and consumables efficiency of 
household  appliances  in  the  use  phase  under  the  ELD  and  of  energy  efficiency  of  office 
equipment under the Energy Star Programme. The Eco-label covers all life cycle phases but in 
practice only a limited number of products are registered under the scheme. Finally, actions at 
national level (Nordic Swann, Blue Angel…) are not coordinated.  

Regulatory  instruments  are  not  sufficiently  connected  and  potential  synergies  between 
different  instruments  are  not  sufficiently  exploited.  Implementation  could  be  more  dynamic 
and  forward-looking  to  drive  the  performance  of  products  upwards.  Divergent  national  and 
regional approaches send conflicting signals to producers, and as a result the full potential of 
the Internal Market is not realised.  

The potential of the ELD has not been fully exploited mainly due to shortage of staff in the 
Commission and allocation of resources to other priorities, which has led, among others, to no 
implementing  measures  on  boilers  and  water  heaters.  On  water  heaters,  there  were  no 
consistent  measurement  standards  between  different  types  of  water  heaters  in  the  past.  This 
meant  that  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  produce  clear  simple  information  to  guide 
customers.  In  order  to  remedy  the  situation,  the  Commission  issued  a  Mandate  for 
standardisation (M204) in 1996. However, the mandate was rejected by CEN as regards gas 
water  heaters,  and  progress  by  Cenelec  in  developing  the  necessary  standards  for  electric 
water heaters was very slow.  Finally, in 2000, a self commitment was made by manufacturers 
of  electric  storage  water  heaters  to  reduce  standing  losses.  In  2003,  a  renewed  mandate 
(M324) was issued. Based on the mandate, CEN has produced an EN standard, while Cenelec 
is still at the stage of a prEN. These standards will now be used in order to develop Ecodesign 
and energy labelling implementing measure on water heaters under the current ELD. 

On boilers, a harmonized minimum efficiency standard was adopted for (household size) gas 
and oil boilers in 1992 (Directive 92/42/EC). As the standard contained a star rating system 
(based  on  energy  efficiency),  boilers  were  not  included  in  the  initial  list  of  products  to  be 
energy labelled.  Experience showed that the star rating system was not effective. In view of 
this,  the  relevant  parts  of  Directive  92/42/EC  were  repealed  by  Directive  2005/32/EC 
(Ecodesign)  and  an  energy  label  for  boilers  is  now  being  developed  in  parallel  with  the 
Ecodesign requirements. The Commission consulted the Ecodesign Consultation Forum with 
its Working Document on boilers and water heaters on 29 February 2008 in order to propose 
Ecodesign  and  energy  labelling  implementing  measures/Directives  on  water  heaters  and 
boilers later this year.  

Also, the possibility of labelling further lighting sources or adding new household appliances 
(e.g.  televisions)  into  the  scope  of  the  Directive  (Article  1.2  of  the  Directive)  has  not  been 
exploited.  Concerning  televisions,  a  self-commitment  by  industry  (EICTA)  was  initiated  in 

28 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2004.  It  delivered  good  results  on  reducing  stand-by  losses  of  TVs  but  failed  in  trying  to 
introduce a voluntary label (mainly because retailers generally were pealing of the label from 
TV frames displayed in shops and show rooms). EICTA decided to stop the self-commitment 
in 2007. 

As to the in/efficiency of the existing implementing Directives, the Annex 10 shows, on the 
one hand, how efficiently the market has been transformed (almost all labelled appliances are 
A or A+), and on the other hand, how inefficient the implementing Directives have become, 
as efficiency of the appliances is not anymore clearly distinguished when distributed to two 
levels of A classes only.  

The new policy approach of the Action Plan aims at integrating the potential of the different 
policy  instruments,  implementing  them  in  a  dynamic  way.  It  comprises  suggestions  for 
actions as follows:  

•  The scope of the Ecodesign Directive will be extended. Minimum requirements will be set 
for  products  with  significant  environmental  impacts,  focusing  on  key  environmental 
aspects  from  a  life-cycle  perspective.  A  revised  impact  assessment  is  available  since 
6/5/2008. 

•  Product  labelling  under  the  ELD  and  Ecolabel  Regulation  will  be  further  developed  to 
provide  consumers  with  information  about  the  energy  and/or  environmental  performance 
of  products.  A  proposal  for  a  revised  Ecolabelling  scheme  was  presented  as  part  of  the 
SCP/SIP  package.  The  present  IA  analyses  further  how  to  reinforce  effectiveness  of 
product labelling and in particular the ELD to achieve the objectives of the SCP/SIP. 

•  The energy efficiency and environmental criteria under the above schemes will be used to 
establish a harmonised base for public procurement and incentives provided by the EU and 
its  Member  States.  This  would  help  to  overcome  the  current  situation  of  inadequate 
information  with  fragmentation  of  stimulus  and  incentives  in  the  Internal  Market,  as 
described in Annex 11. 

•  A  range  of  other  actions  to  arrive  at  smarter  consumption  will  also  be  undertaken.  In 
particular,  action  will  be  implemented  with  retailers  and  producers  of  products  to  green 
their  own  activities  and  supply  chains,  as  well  as  raising  the  awareness  of  consumers  at 
large and increasing their proactive role. 

The impact assessment on the Ecodesign Directive identifies an external cost due to current 
market failures ranging from €74 – €298 billion in the EU-27. Out of this total cost, energy-
using products account for some 1/3 (€25-100) of which typically more than 90% of the life 
cycle environmental impacts take place during the use phase. ELD and Ecodesing will help 
reducing this cost.  

Market  failures  to  public  procurement  decisions  are  mainly  information  asymmetries  and 
bounded  rationality29.  Lack  of  information  about  the  long  term  financial  benefits  is  a  main 
barrier  to  the  uptake  of  resource  efficient  products.  However,  even  when  the  relevant 
information and necessary credit is easily available, procurers may still not decide rationally 
but act in a myopic (i.e. short-sighted) way buying the low price – high lifetime cost product. 
The cause for this lies in the difficulty to process complex information in a purchase situation 
and  to  draw  from  it  the  correct  (rational)  conclusions.  This  puts  emphasis  on  the  level  of 

29 Impact Assessment on SCP/SIP.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
simplicity  to  understand  the  information  and  to  realise  its  value  in  relation  to  purchaser 
preferences in comparison with other similar product. 

Although the assessment of the usefulness and impact of various types of incentives is a task 
for Member States and not for this impact assessment, energy labelling can be considered as a 
European-wide  framework  within  which  the  national  authorities  can  develop  such  schemes. 
Experience and research30 shows that some general issues are common for such schemes to 
work: 

•  schemes which give customers rebates or other incentives should apply to all products 
providing  the  same  function  and  be  available  in  all  relevant  stores  and  distribution 
chains (no restrictions as to type of outlets selling the product); 
incentives  should  be  valid  for  a  log  time  period  enough  across  the  whole  country  to 
help retailers plan their purchases and marketing strategies;  
incentive schemes should be general without need for forecast of sales or budgets (no 
reward for incremental sales). 

• 

• 

The European energy labelling scheme has helped, for example, the Netherlands and the Italy 
to  develop  incentive  schemes.  The  Dutch  EPR  scheme  has  been  successful  in  transforming 
the  market  for  household  appliances  in  the  Netherlands31  and  several  Member  States32  are 
planning incentive schemes for the future. In the absence of minimum efficiency requirements 
in  form  of  specifically  identified  labelling  classes33  for  public  procurement  and  incentive 
schemes,  the  industry  and  consumers  will  risk  working  under  27  different  schemes  with 
varying efficiency levels. The role of the product specific impact assessments is to judge the 
right level for such levels, if any, on each product group being labelled.  

2.2 Limits of the scope of the Directive 

Stakeholders  found,  in  line  with  the  Action  Plan  on  SCP/SIC,  that  energy  labelling  scheme 
could  be  successful  also  when  applied  to  a  number  of  products  not  covered  by  its  current 
scope,  which  is  restricted  to  household  appliances.  Stakeholders  have  requested  that  all 
energy-using products but also some non-energy using products could be energy labelled to 
inform  potential  buyers  of  their  performance.  The  additional  energy-related  appliances 
represent  a  technical  energy  savings  potential  of  above  158  Mtoe34,  which  cannot  be 
addressed within the scope of the present Directive. It should be considered whether some of 
this potential would be worth-while addressing with labelling and whether it would be cost-
efficient to do so. For a number of non-energy using products which however have an impact 

30 Cool labels - The first three years of the European Energy Label, University of Oxford. 

31 Energy Premium Scheme EPR for domestic appliances in the Netherlands, Hans-Paul Siderius, Novem. 

32 For example, the most recent French intention to generalise the 'bonus-malus' system from cars to electrical 
appliances, Le Monde, 19.8.2008. 

33 It is important to express the harmonised minimum energy efficiency classes in form of classes (A-G) instead 
of in form of a numerical value (e.g. energy efficiency index) in order to avoid disturbing the markets 
when the values for classes change as a result of a revised implementing measure.  

34  COM  (2006)  545  final  of  19.10.2006  estimates  that  the  technical  savings  potential  from  commercial  and 
industrial sectors is 152 Mtoe by 2020, which represents 27 % and 30 % respectively of the total consumption of 
549 Mtoe 2020 under BaU. The figure excludes energy-related non-energy using products from the residential 
sector,  such  as  windows.  The  figures  must  be  taken  as  indicative  given  that  boundaries  between  'household', 
'commercial' and 'industrial' products are not always clear cut. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
 
 
 
on energy conservation, such as windows (glazing and frames), the savings potential can also 
be considered in energy terms.  

Also in the case of energy-using products outside the scope of the current ELD, information 
asymmetries  are  a  main  market  failure.  However,  market  structure  of  the  energy-using 
products can lead to different practical situations than in the case of household appliances. For 
example, industrial appliances are traded largely on an OEM market35, which represents 80-
90% of total sales of these products. While not being responsible for paying the running costs, 
OEM  manufacturers  tend  to  put  less  emphasis  on  designing  efficient  appliances/parts,  as 
inefficiency in use does not add to manufacturers' costs. Also, there is often a situation of split 
budgets where one budget is used to spend money so that another budget can show savings.36 
For example, investing in the efficiency of an industrial pumping or commercial refrigeration 
system is the responsibility of the maintenance department or service provider, and earmarked 
in its budget (meaning that mainly purchase/investment cost matters), while the savings due to 
increased efficiency accrue to the budget of the production/sales department and the general 
budget  of  the  enterprise.  The  impact  assessment  of  SCP/SIP  show  similar  information 
asymmetries related to other energy-related products.    

Currently, the ELD does not allow the provision of product information in the label such as an 
estimate  of  the  annual  running  cost  in  monetary  terms  (though  it  gives  estimates  of  yearly 
consumption)  or  carbon  footprint.  The  relevance  of  opening  the  possibility  to  show  such 
information under the ELD should be assessed as part of the revision in order to aim at further 
reducing  the  information  asymmetries  in  the  market.  Similarly,  the  ELD  does  not  allow 
provisions to  cover  advertising by manufacturers, retailers or their  representatives  in  media, 
such  as  websites  (e.g.  Internet  sales),  newspapers  or  TV.  This  media  has  an  important 
growing impact on consumer knowledge and purchase  decisions.  Provisions on these issues 
could  help  changing  the  consumer  behaviour  based  on  purchase  price  towards  purchases 
based on life cycle cost. 

2.3 Limits of the functioning of the Directive 

The  dynamism  of  the  ELD  -  within  a  given  scope  –  depends,  first  of  all,  on  the  resources 
allocated within the Commission to develop new implementing measures (periodic reviews) 
and on the support by the Member States in the Regulatory Committee. Another obstacle to 
the adoption of reviews is the industry stakeholders’ resistance in upgrading the A–G ratings, 
as  it  implies  downgrading  of  appliances  in  stock  (an  'A'  appliance  becomes  a  'B'  or  a  'C' 
appliance,  which  leads  to  decreased  value  of  these  appliances  in  stock  due  to  reduced 
consumer interest). 

Currently  the  ELD  framework  only  allows  implementing  Directives,  which  require 
transposition  by  Member  States  and  the  follow  up  of  the  transposition  by  the  Commission. 
Implementing measures in the form of regulations or decisions would reduce administrative 
burden and respond to a strong request made by industry in order to ensure level playing field 
for competition in the Internal Market and the harmonised introduction of measures across the 
Member States. 

35 Original equipment manufacturer, or OEM, is an ambiguous and abstruse phrase that refers to containment-
based re-branding, where a company uses a component of another company in its product, or sells the product of 
another company under its own brand. OEM refers to the company that originally manufactured the product. 
36EuP 
motors, 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm.  

circulators: 

industrial 

pumps, 

study 

fans 

and 

Lot 

on 

11 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Tolerances in test standards are considered to be too wide in the case of many appliances37, 
which can allow an appliance to have a falsely higher ranking. As technical development has 
increased  the  accuracy  of  testing  devices  and  methods,  it  should  be  assessed  whether  some 
provisions could be added to the ELD that would contribute minimising variation. 

Market surveillance is not addressed in the provisions of the ELD contrary to other relevant 
Community  legislation.  Several  stakeholders38  have  reported  insufficient  surveillance  and 
enforcement  by  Member  State  authorities,  both  in  respect  to  manufacturers  meeting  the  set 
requirements and retailers displaying correct information. 

The  energy  label  has  no  legal  protection,  which  entails  risks  of  abuse  by  third  parties.  The 
lack of provisions ruling the voluntary use of the Community energy label by third parties can 
put the credibility of the scheme in danger.  

The  ELD  makes  no  provision  regarding  the  use  of  implementing  measures  as  a  basis  for 
public procurement or incentives by Member States. Today, Member State practices are not 
harmonised as to the efficiency levels for appliances purchased/promoted. Consumers, public 
administrations and industry would benefit if the Member States made harmonised use of the 
energy  class  levels  and  measurement  standards  set  out  in  the  implementing  measures  as 
reference for their public procurement or incentives.   

2.4 Identifying the affected parties and the impacts therewith 

•  The  (framework)  ELD  puts  requirements  only  on  Member  State  authorities  and 

Commission, while the Implementing Directives address: 

o  Retailers/dealers being responsible for the affixing of the label at the point of sales on 
the regulated appliances and for the provision of correct information to consumers; 

o  Manufacturers/suppliers  being 

the 
performance of their models, for holding the technical documentation and for providing 
the labels to retailers/dealers; 

for  measuring  and  declaring 

responsible 

o  Member  State  authorities  for  the  implementation  of  the  directives,  including  both 

transposition into national legislation and market surveillance. 

In  addition,  implementing  measures  affect  all  citizens  and  public  authorities  as  potential 
customers. Labelled products require manufacturers to provide energy efficiency information 
in  a  standard  format  to  be  made  publicly  available.  This  allows  consumers  and  public 
purchases to more easily calculate running cost of products and to compare the efficiency of 
products.  Furthermore,  particularly  for  a  typical  consumer,  it  is  very  difficult,  if  not 
impossible, to calculate the running cost for a TV or a lamp39 but very easy and convenient to 
compare  the  efficiency  levels  between  different  TVs  or  lamps  shown  in  an  A-G  efficiency 
scale.  

The  labelling  scheme  provides  a  level  playing  field  for  manufacturers  to  position  their 
products in term of energy efficiency in their marketing and design activities in a predictable 
way.  It  also  results  in  a  larger  and  more  competitive  market  in  providing  an  incentive  to 

37 See e.g. Ecodesign preparatory studies on 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm#studies  
38 E.g. ANEC, CECED, Swedish Energy Agency. 
39 Calculating the annual running costs for example for a fridge or a freezer that is running constantly tends to be 
much easier with help of the annual consumption figures provided in the energy label. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
produce  high-efficiency  appliances.  More  efficient  appliances  also  provide  manufacturers  a 
competitive advantage in third country markets.  

For retailers, a well functioning energy labelling scheme can be a powerful marketing tool for 
products  that  often  provide  higher  profit  for  the  retailer  and  lower  life-cycle  cost  for 
consumer.  

The  visibility  and  credibility  of  a  label  endorsed  by  public  authority  allow  households  to 
compare  appliances  and  buy  those  that  cost  less  over  the  life-cycle  of  the  product  and 
contribute to a better environment.  

Public  authorities  can  lean  on  a  harmonised  EU  level  scheme  when  setting  incentives  or 
rebate schemes for the most efficient appliances while respecting fair competition. Clear and 
credible  ranking  of  appliances  can  help  public  authorities  to  purchase  (for  relevant  product 
groups) or to set up incentive schemes with double benefit in form of savings for the public 
sector  and  in  contribution  to  an  increased  demand  for  energy  efficient  and  environmentally 
sound appliances. This is an important aspect of the SCP/SIP40.  

The way in which these aspects would develop over time is further described under the policy 
option 'business as usual'. 

2.5 Transposition and compliance 

In the early days of the energy labelling, failure to display labels and incorrect labelling was 
an important issue. The situation has improved but compliance remains a concern41. Currently 
the (Framework) Directive provides for implementing Directives (under article 9). This is in 
contrast with the Ecodesign Directive 2005/32/EC which allows for implementing measures 
to  be  either  decisions  or  regulations.  The  advantage  of  regulations  is  that  they  reduce  the 
legislative  burden  on  Member  States  and  allow  for  a  level  playing  field  for  manufacturers 
who will no longer be affected by divergent progress on transposition across the EU27; there 
can be significant time delays in transposition which may cause uncertainty in the market.42   

The  Ecodesign  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  designate  authorities  responsible  for 
market  surveillance  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive.  Possible 
actions  include  an  adequate  scale  of  checks  on  compliance,  provision  of  necessary 
information and spot checks on products.  Member States are required to report their market 
surveillance  findings  to  the  Commission.  These  authorities  are  responsible  for  market 
surveillance  on  compliance  with  both  minimum  performance  requirements  and  energy 
labelling schemes. 

2.6 EU right to act: Treaty base and subsidiarity 

The ELD is based on Article 95 of the Treaty. 

In  order  to  achieve  a  well-functioning  Internal  Market  for  household  (and  possibly  other) 
appliances and a level playing field without technical barriers to trade, a compulsory labelling 
scheme  was  be  set  out  at  Community  level.  Now  the  scheme  needs  to  be  reviewed.  The 
principle of subsidiarity is respected by the fact that Member States are assigned appropriate 
responsibilities with regard to the implementation of Community legislation related to energy 
efficiency  of  appliances  and  market  surveillance.  This  includes  the  Comitology  process  in 
which the Member States are able to exercise their legal power. A proposal is currently on the 

40 Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy. 
41 Survey of Compliance Directive 92/75EEC, Draft Interim Report to the Commission, 25 August 2008.  
42 Background study: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm  

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
table  to  provide  the  European  Parliament  with  a  reinforced  right  of  scrutiny.  The  Directive 
keeps proportionate as it does not go beyond what is required for achieving its policy goals. 

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  this  policy  revision  is  to  contribute  to  the  EU  energy  policy  goals 
sated  in  the  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plan  and  in  the  Climate  Change  Package;  to  save  at 
least  20%  of  its  present  energy  consumption  in  a  cost-effective  manner  and  reduce  overall 
emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with contribution to the Lisbon Agenda 
and to the EU Sustainable Development Strategies. This will be done in identifying the most 
cost-efficient  way(s)  to  reinforce  the  market  transformation  towards  more  efficient  and 
environmental-friendly products, which contribute to energy savings, better environment and 
sustainable  production  and  consumption,  while  providing  useful  and  easy-to-understand 
information on product performance to consumers  

The  specific  objectives  are  to  contribute  to  energy  saving,  and  related  emissions  reduction, 
within two sub-categories of products: 

(1) household appliances; 
(2) all energy-related products43.  

Depending on the policy option chosen, the specific objectives will be achieved by means of 
operational  objectives  that  were  consulted  with  stakeholders  (Annex  13)  as  summarised  in 
table 3.1. The outcomes sought by the ELD are realised through the implementing measures 
and are to be evaluated on the basis of the results of these measures.  

Table 3.1: Operational objectives 
No  Operational objectives 
1 
2 
3 

Increase the number of household appliances for which an energy label is introduced  
Introduce energy label to priority energy-using and energy-related appliances  
Regularly review existing implementing measures according to timeframe indicated in each 
implementing measure 
Provide additional useful product information in labels based on product specific impact assessment 
Cover distant mail, media advertising and other distant selling activities with energy label as defined in 
implementing measures based on specificities of each product group 
Save administrative cost in implementing ELD with implementing measures 
Prevent unauthorised use of label 

Ensure adequate framework requirements on measurement tolerances and market surveillance activities 

Ensure framework requirements for Member State public procurement and incentive schemes and that 
these schemes are linked with energy labelling scales of individual implementing measures  

4 
5 

6 
7 

8 

9 

No further objectives for the savings of other essential resources (Article 1 of the Directive) in 
the  use  phase  are  developed  in  order  to  keep  the  focus  clearly  on  the  main  environmental 
impacts.  A  well  designed  product  labelling  ought  to  take  such  trade-offs  into  account  and 
ensure  that  the  focus  on  one  environmental  parameter  (energy  consumption  in  use)  is  not 
promoted  at  the  detriment  of  the  global  environmental  performance  of  the  product  over  its 
lifecycle.  Potential  trade-offs  must  be  addressed  in  product  specific  impact  assessments. 

43 Energy-related products are products that have an impact on energy consumption during use. This includes 
products such as window frames, whose insulation properties influence the energy required for the heating and 
cooling of the buildings etc. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However, the issue of consumption of 'other essential resources' in use phase and the trade-off 
with  energy  mainly  applies  to  a  very  limited  number  of  well  known  products,  the  so  called 
'wet goods' (washing and dish washing machines and dryers to some degree). Currently there 
is no accepted methodology that could prioritise between environmental impacts. However in 
the  case  of  energy-using  products  it  is  clear  that  typically  more  than  90%  of  environmental 
impacts take place in the use phase corresponding to energy consumption. 

The indicators for the specific objectives are in particular the electricity (TWh) and primary 
energy (Mtoe) saved and related CO2 emissions reduced, depending on the product group in 
question (e.g. an electric, gas, oil or solid fuel appliance). Changes in market share towards 
higher efficiency appliances/classes over time and the amount of energy saved indicates the 
speed of market change induced by the labelling scheme. 

SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS 

In  the  light  of  the  past  achievements  (see  Annex  10),  termination  of  the  labelling  scheme 
cannot  be  considered  as  a  valid  policy  option.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  light  of  the  speed  in 
market  developments  and  the  environmental  pressure,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  how  to 
reinforce the scheme with minimum, or possibly reduced, additional burden. As requirements 
for  a  well-functioning  Internal  Market  have  not  changed  since  the  adoption  of  the  ELD, 
Member State or non-regulatory action alone is not a realistic alternative. Instead, alternative 
EU-level solutions need to be considered in combination with other available regulatory and 
non-regulatory  actions  in  order  to  consider  to  what  extent  each  policy  option  is  capable  in 
reaching the maximum of the energy savings and emission reduction objectives set out in the 
Action  Plans  for  Energy  Efficiency  and  SCP/SIP  and  the  Climate  Change  Package.  Four 
policy options are identified that could possibly achieve the specific objectives. These are:  

(1) No policy change, with two sub-options: 

1a)  BaU - business as usual,  
1b)  BaU + 1 - full implementation of the current ELD scope. 

(2) Non-regulatory action. 
(3) Amend the Directive - full implementation of the current ELD scope, plus 
coverage of all energy-related products, excluding means of transport. 

(4) Repeal the Directive and implement its provisions within the Ecodesign Directive - 
full implementation of the current ELD scope, plus coverage of all energy-related 
products, excluding means of transport.  

The product specific impact assessments will have to look at further 'sub-options' within the 
scope of the ELD, such as the appropriate information on labels or possible provisions to 
upgrade the label grid depending on the type of product in question. Further actions such as 
requirements for suppliers and dealers to organise consumer advisory services or the like can 
not be dealt with under actions stemming from Article 95 of the Treaty.    

4.1 Policy option 1: BaU - business as usual  
This policy option is divided in two sub-options, one with no further action and one with full 
implementation of the current scope of the ELD. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
4.1.1 Policy option 1a: BaU -  no further action 

This  BaU  scenario  includes  the  current  scope  of  the  ELD  with  no  development  of  new  or 
updated implementing measures. The option serves as an analytical baseline for comparison 
of  costs  and  benefits  with  the  other  policy  options.  The  impact  of  options  3  and  4  will  be 
compared against both BaU options. 

The effect of the labelling implementing measures will continue to have some effect in time 
even without strengthening the scheme, in particular for those products on which there are no 
minimum  (Ecodesign)  requirements  in  place.  However,  given  that  the  life  time  of  an 
appliance  varies  around  10-12  years,  the  impact  of  the  increased  energy  efficiency  of 
appliances  covered  by  implementing  measures  will  vanish  around  2013-2015,  as  the  latest 
implementing measures have been introduced in 2002-200344. Although energy efficiency of 
these appliances is not expected to go down by 2020 ('nega-joules' gained), it is not expected 
to  increase  without  additional  measures  on  the  product  groups  currently  covered  by 
implementing  Directives.  In  addition,  a  labelling  scheme  looses  its  impact  once  all  or  most 
models correspond to the A rating.    

4.1.2 Policy option 1b: “BaU + 1”,  including optimal implementation of the current ELD 

The  “BaU  +  1”  scenario  includes  the  scope  as  it  is  currently  but  with  an  optimal 
implementation of the current ELD based on the Article 1 of the Directive. The option implies 
to cover all relevant household appliances by implementing measures as foreseen in Article 1. 
This  means  the  introduction  of  implementing  measures  for  new  household  energy-using 
appliances  such  as  boilers,  water  heater  and  TVs,  and  the  upgrading  of  the  existing 
implementing Directives.  

Apart from the full implementation of the present ELD scope, account must be taken on other 
relevant  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  action,  such  as  Ecodesign,  Ecolabel,  Energy-Star, 
IPPC45 and voluntary industry and Member State initiatives. Member States are expected to 
continue  developing  national  and  regional  labelling  schemes  (e.g.  Blaue  Engel  or  Nordic 
Swan).  Member  States  would  continue  public  procurement  procedures  on  an  uncoordinated 
national  basis  and  provide  incentives  for  the  acceleration  of  the  uptake  of  more  performing 
products without a harmonised framework.  

4.2 Policy option 2: Non-regulatory action 
The second policy option relies on voluntary action by industry to reinforce energy labelling 
in  combination  with  other  relevant  Community  tools,  such  as  the  Ecodesign  Directive, 
Ecolabel,  Energy-Star.  This  option  would  coexist  with  voluntary  national  and  regional 
labelling  schemes.  Member  State  participation  would  be  based  on  a  voluntary  approach  to 
harmonise incentives and public procurement for energy efficient goods in line with option 1. 

4.3  Policy  option  3:  Amend  (recast)  the  ELD,  including  broadened  scope  to  energy-
related products 
The  third  option  includes  amending  the  ELD,  taking  into  account  the  amended  Ecodesign 
Directive,  in  order  to  accommodate  actions  that  help  to  reach  the  specific  objectives.  This 
policy option considers covering all energy-using products (excluding means of transport) and 

44 Implementing measures on ovens, air-conditioning appliances and refrigerators and freezers. 
45 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) on energy and resource efficiency focuses 
on the production processes and not on product efficiency. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
energy-related  products  (that  have  an  impact  on  energy  consumption  when  in  use/installed) 
within the scope of the revised ELD, as defined in the draft Communication on SCP/SIP.  

The implementing Directives/measures would serve as a framework for Member State public 
procurement  and  incentives  across  the  Internal  Market,  subject  to  compliance  with  existing 
Internal Market and competition rules. The levels for public procurement or incentives would 
be based on class levels among those set out in the implementing measures while leaving the 
possibility  for  public  authorities  to  take  into  account  the  affordability  of  consumers  in  each 
Member State. This would ensure sufficient choice of products on the market and guarantee 
budgetary neutrality of purchases over the life cycle of the product for procurers.   

For the sake of clarity and simplification and to limit the discussions in co-decision procedure 
to the main elements of the ELD to be considered, the amendment of the Directive would be 
implemented through the recasting technique.46  

The  actual  energy-related  products  to  be  labelled  can  not  be  listed  out  in  this  impact 
assessment  as  it  would  require  separate  product  specific  impact  assessments  backed  by 
preparatory studies. For indicative purpose, some products based on past studies and reports 
with most promising savings potential and suitability for energy labelling under the ELD are 
considered in Annex 9. 

4.4  Policy  option  4:  Repeal  the  ELD  and  implement  energy  labelling  within  the 
Ecodesign Directive 
This  option  would  include  repealing  the  ELD  and  implementing  its  provisions  through  the 
Ecodesign Directive, as also considered in the  Action Plan for SCP/SIP. It would  cover  the 
same scope and include the same actions and general implementation framework as analysed 
under the option 3, including public procurement and incentives. 

SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

In the following chapters, a qualitative and quantitative assessment is performed for impacts 
on which sufficiently reliable data are available. The analysis focuses on the achievement of 
the  specific  objectives  by  policy  options  considered  against  the  BaU  scenario  (additional 
savings achieved against option 1a). Change in the scope of the ELD framework has no direct 
impacts,  as  the  ELD  is  a  framework  directive.  The  environmental,  economic  and  social 
impacts  stem  from  implementing  measures  on  specific  products,  which  are  adopted  by  the 
Commission in a comitology procedure (the ELD Committee) following a technical/economic 
preparatory  study,  stakeholder  consultation,  WTO/TBT  notification  and  dedicated  impact 
assessment.  As  a  result  of  the  studies,  technical  recommendations  are  made  for  minimum 
requirements  under  Ecodesign,  energy  labelling  schemes  under  the  ELD  and  other  possible 
measures,  as  appropriate.  Thus,  figures  and  results  presented  in  this  impact  assessment  are 
examples  of  what  could  be  achieved,  if  the  scope  of  the  framework  directive  would  be 
extended  with  a  parallel  action  by  an  amended  Ecodesign  Directive  (extension  to  energy-
related products).  

The  policy  options  are  considered  keeping  in  mind  that  fluctuation  in  energy  prices  and 
energy dependency will continue having an impact on the EU economy. In the likely future 
economic  context  with  rising  energy  prices,  the  urgency  and  pressure  to  achieve  energy 
savings  will  continue  and  the  usefulness  of  the  labelling  tool  as  a  policy  instrument  will  be 
reinforced. 

46 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002Q0328:EN:HTML  

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.1 Policy option 1: BaU – business as usual 

The policy option 1 is divided in two sub-options (1a and. 1b) in order to consider the BaU in 
an  analytically  useful  'no-change'  (baseline)  option  and  in  a  'full  implementation'  (BaU  +1) 
option. This allows considerations on issues such as resources needed for full implementation 
of  the  current  ELD  against  the  baseline  as  well  as  the  comparison  of  other  policy  options 
against both BaU sub-options. 

5.1.1 Policy option 1a: BaU - no further action  

A  number  of  policies  and  instruments  is  already  in  place:  the  climate  package  (Emission 
Trading  Scheme  (ETS),  sectors  beyond  ETS  and  renewables),  Directives  on  industrial 
emissions,  waste,  air  quality,  Energy  Services,  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings,  Energy 
Labelling  and  Ecodesign,  Energy  Star,  Eco-label,  Combined  Heat  and  Power,  Energy 
Efficiency Action Plan, EMAS and ETAP. 

EU energy labelling affects all products covered by an implementing Directive and put on the 
Internal  Market,  irrespective  if  they  are  manufactured  in  the  EU  or  in  a  third  country. 
Therefore  the  impacts  are  the  same  for  EU  and  non-EU  companies.    In  principle,  energy 
labelling stimulates innovation within the affected industry. Companies putting most efficient 
appliances  on  the  European  market  increase  their  chances  to  be  competitive  also  on  other 
markets,  as  the  demand  for  energy  efficient  products  will  grow  steadily  together  with  the 
global fight to mitigate climate change. The possibility to differentiate products and promote 
the better ones helps manufacturers to recover R&D-investments for more efficient products. 

The  BaU  is  based  on  the  European  Commission  Baseline  scenario  for  energy  trends47 
assuming a steady growth of the EU economy with a sustained industrial component. It also 
assumes relatively high world energy prices compared with previous projections and similar 
to  reference  projections  from  other  sources,  which  increase  at  a  moderate  pace.  It  takes 
account of policies and measures already in place at the end of 2006. 

The  carbon  intensity  of  GDP,  expressed  as  CO2  emissions  per  unit  of  GDP,  is  projected  to 
decrease  by  1.8%  per  year  during  2005-2030,  slightly  down  from  2.2%  per  year  in  1990-
2005.  For  the  period  2005-2030,  this  result  is  almost  exclusively  due  to  energy  efficiency 
gains, while in the past the reduction of carbon intensity of GDP was also due to the reduction 
in the carbon intensity of energy (by 33%).  

The  final  energy  demand  sectors  continue  to  use  more  natural  gas  instead  of  more  carbon 
intensive  fuels.  Consequently,  direct  CO2  emissions  by  these  sectors,  namely  in  industry, 
residential, services and agriculture, are shown to be stable or to increase only at a moderate 
pace between 2005 and 2020.  

Synergies and complementary with other energy efficiency activities would continue mainly 
with  Ecodesign,  Energy-Star  and  Ecolabel  as  depicted  in  Annex  2.  Possible  synergies  may 
well appear also when the EPBD and ESD are implemented, particularly if they are revised, 
as currently planned for the EPBD. Member States and industry would continue the existing 
schemes (e.g. Blaue Engel, Nordic Swan and industry voluntary action) on product groups not 
regulated  at  EU  level.  CECED,  the  European  Committee  for  Domestic  Equipment 
Manufacturers, and EICTA are not proposing new voluntary agreements, as they consider that 
the  Ecodesign  together  with  the  ELD  are  a  better  framework  for  implementing  European 
product policy, as it leaves no space for free riders. 

47  Trends 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030_update_2007/index_en.htm  

to  2030  –  Updaate  2007,  European  energy  and  Transport,  European  Commission: 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
It is estimated that with present policies in place, 65 TWh to 75 TWh per year including the 
related  CO2  emissions  could  be  saved  by  201048.  The  climate  change  and  energy  policy 
package  has  an  impact  due  to  its  increased  emphasis  on  reducing  emissions  and  the  likely 
increase  in  electricity  prices  by  10-15 %  by  2020  in  comparison  to  today’s  level.  For  final 
consumers, increases in unit electricity prices are partially compensated by overall increased 
energy efficiency, which is resulting in a reduction of electricity consumption of around 10 %. 
This, to a large extent, will counter the above mentioned increases in electricity prices. These 
combined  effects  lead  to  a  rather  moderate  energy  cost  increase  prediction  for  households 
which is estimated to be about € 150 per year (in 2020)49. Therefore, electricity price increases 
alone  cannot  be  expected  to  stimulate  a  stronger  push  for  more  efficient  appliances  than 
current policies.  

The Ecodesign Directive is under revision in order to include all energy-related products. This 
will  allow  setting  requirements  on  all  these  products  but  will  not  have  any  impact  on  the 
functioning of the ELD. The impact is relevant only in the case that a product group covered 
by  an  ELD  implementing  directive  is  subject  to  Ecodesign  requirements.  However,  in 
practice, new minimum requirements would just empty some of the lower labelling classes in 
the existing labels without the need to review the existing ELD implementing Directives, as 
long  as  some  models  have  better  performances  than  the  minimum  energy  performance 
requirement set under the Ecodesign measures.  

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  continue  implementing  public  procurement  and 
incentive  schemes  on  national  basis  with  distortions  of  the  Internal  Market50.  It  shows  that 
policies  in  place  are  not  sufficiently  aligned  and  linked  with  each  other to  realize  synergies 
but send conflicting signals and leave gaps that result in a fragmented regulatory framework 
rather  than  a  consistent  one.  As  an  exception,  the  Energy-Star  Programme  on  office 
equipment  provides  coordinated  levels  for  mandatory  public  purchases  of  the  products 
covered, contributing to solving information asymmetries for public procurers by showing the 
'hidden' costs of use over the expected life span. 

No stakeholder supported this policy option. 

5.1.2 Policy option 1b: “BaU + 1”, including optimal implementation of the current ELD  

The current scope of the ELD allows addressing the technical energy saving potential of 91 
Mtoe by 2020 in the residential sector51. While a big part of this technical potential could be 
addressed  with  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive, 
some of it - one third as an order of magnitude - should be addressed with the ELD, subject to 
product  specific  preparatory  studies.  However,  it  is  not  appropriate  to  set  minimum 
requirements  at  the  level  of  best  available  technology.  Affordability,  competition  and 
differentiation  in  functionalities  usually  justify  some  diversity  on  the  market;  in  turn,  such 
diversity justifies providing reliable information to consumers on the products’ performance 
through labelling.   

48 Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European Union – Status Report 2006. P 
Bertoldi, B Atanasiu. 2007. 
49 SEC(2008) 85/323 of 23 January 2008. 
50 Impact Assessment on SCP/SIP. 
51  Defining  the  border  line  between  residential  and  commercial  products  may  be  easy  in  the  case  of  vacuum 
cleaners or coffee machines of certain type but is more difficult in the case of vacuum cleaners of bigger size, 
which could also be used by SMEs in the commercial sector. This is why this impact assessment refrains from 
defining  products  specific  to  these  sectors  but  refers  to  the  general  technical  savings  potential  estimated  by 
Commission official documents.  

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
The BaU+1 option is considered as an option to fully implement the existing provisions and 
tools,  that  is,  continuing  to  develop  implementing  measures  on  product  groups  covered  by 
Article 1 of the Directive, such as household boilers and water heaters. Also, it includes fully 
exploiting  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  Article  1.2  of  the  Directive  in  setting  energy 
labelling requirements on any household appliance not yet explicitly mentioned in Article 1, 
such  as  TVs.  This  option  would  also  include  the  updating  of  the  existing  implementing 
Directives.  

In  the  past,  the  introduction  of  more  efficient  appliances  has  been  extremely  cost-effective. 
However,  due  to  exhaustion  of  the  "easy"  saving  potential  for  some  appliances  and  higher 
R&D-costs  the  cost-effectiveness  will  decrease,  but  remain  quite  positive,  especially  when 
considering raise of the price of energy.  52 Precise quantifications are impossible to give but 
Annexes 9, 10 and 11 provide indicative figures in the case of exemplary product groups.   

To date, there has been no upgrade of values for efficiency classes (A-G scale values), except 
for refrigerators and freezers. As a consequence, most of the appliances today have reached 
the A or B level, which risks undermining the effectiveness of the scheme on the longer run. 
However,  it  also  confirms  the  success  of  the scheme;  appliances  have  become  more  energy 
efficient. Although energy labelling and technological development have made further energy 
savings  more  challenging  in  the  case  of  the  product  groups  already  labelled,  considerable 
savings  can  still  be  reached  in  upgrading  the  existing  implementing  Directives  with  a 
corresponding  estimated  savings  of  some  2  Mtoe53  by  2020  (without  minimum  efficiency 
requirements  under  Ecodesign),  corresponding  to  emission  savings  of  some  8,4  Mt  of  CO2 
and of some €3 billion by 2020. The potential is particularly important in the Implementing 
Directives on air-conditioning appliances, dishwashers and washing machines54.  

Full  implementation  of  the  ELD  would  include  addressing  the  savings  potential  of  heating 
and  water  heating  appliances,  which  has  not  yet  been  done  under  the  ELD.  These  heating 
appliances are estimated to represent about half of the total cost-efficient savings potential of 
the  considered  appliances  within  the  scope  of  the  present  ELD.  The  Ecodesign  preparatory 
study  aims  at  about 58 Mtoe total savings55 in primary energy (90 Mt  of Co2)56 by  2020 in 
residential  heating  and  water  heating  with  the  combination  of  the  Energy  Performance  of 
Buildings  Directive  (EPBD),  Ecodesign  Directive  and  ELD.  The  mixture  of  Ecodesign, 
installation and labelling requirements would result in yearly net savings of €45 billion as of 
2020, out of which about €15 billion57 could be reached by energy labelling. 

While  most  savings  on  heating  and  water  heating  appliances  will  be  achieved  through 
Ecodesign  and  EPBD  requirements  on  installation,  the  estimated  impact  of  the  ELD  could 

52 Impact Assessment Report for the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 2006: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm  

that 

show 

the  potential 

53 This is slightly more than the above 1 Mtoe saving estimated in the Impact Assessment Report for the Action 
Plan for Energy Efficiency 2006: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm, which 
estimated the savings potential to be equal to some 30% of already realised energy savings. However, the latest 
technological  developments 
studies: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm).  
54 Ecodesign studies: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  
55 The Ecodesign preparatory studies http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm estimate 
that the total energy saving potential of boilers and water heaters in the residential and commercial sectors is 77 
Mtoe. Some 75% (58 Mtoe) of these savings come from the boilers and water heaters of the size typically used 
in residential sector. 
56  Conversion  factor  from  primary  energy  (Mtoe)  to  emissions  (Mt  of  Co2)  is  2,597.  MEEuP  Ecodesign 
methodology: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm 
57 On electricity price of €0,136/kWh. 

(Ecodesign  preparatory 

is  higher 

27 

 
 
                                                 
 
account to savings of some 18 Mtoe58 by 2020, corresponding to emissions saved of some 46 
Mt of CO2 and yearly net savings of some €15 billion. The estimate made by the background 
study  on  the  impact  of  labelling  on  boilers  alone  is  slightly  lower  but  in  the  same  order  of 
magnitude  (savings  of  20  Mt  of  CO2  vs.  €5.5  billion  from  labelling  on  boilers  alone).  For 
clarity,  the  above  saving  figures  through  energy  labelling,  like  the  other  figures  in  this 
chapter, are estimates based on the most probable future scenario with impact assumed from a 
joint action of EPBD, Ecodesign and ELD.   

It  is  important  to  notice  that  heating  and  water  heating  appliances  are  often  sold  through 
installers rather than directly to customers (principal-agent problem), which can lead to low-
efficient and over-sized appliances. However, it is currently considered to include mandatory 
requirements  in  the  EBPD  (under  review)  obliging  installers  to  match  efficient  heating 
systems  (rated  under  the  labelling  scheme)  with  the  heat  demand  of  the  particular  building. 
This  requirement  would  further  increase  the  effect  of  the  labelling  scheme  and  the  synergy 
between the two Directives.  
An energy label is planned on televisions with a total savings potential of 46 TWh by 2020.59 
Out of this total potential, it is estimated that energy labelling could catch around 12 (about 1 
Mtoe) by 2020, corresponding to emission reduction of 4,860 Mt of CO2 and €1,6 billion61 pa 
by  2020.  As  to  lighting,  the  Ecodesign  preparatory  studies  indicate  that  general  lighting 
appliances would provide some 74 TWh of savings potential of which energy labelling could 
catch some 16 TWh (about 1,5 Mtoe) by 2020, corresponding to reduced emissions of 6,4 Mt 
of CO2 vs. €2.2 billion.  

Based on the above considerations, it is estimated that vigorous implementation of the current 
ELD, including the  upgrading  of  the existing implementing Directives and the development 
of  new  ones  would  help  to  reach  savings  of  some  22  Mtoe62    by  2020  in  the  case  of  the 
considered priority appliances alone, corresponding to emission reduction of some 65 Mt of 
CO2, or €22 billion by 2020.  

Office  equipment  is  covered  by  the  Energy  Star  Programme  under  the  International 
Agreement signed between the EU and the USA to coordinate their energy labelling schemes 
for  office  equipment.  Although  the  Agreement  would  legally  allow  covering  also  the  office 
equipment under the ELD, such an overlap is considered inappropriate and inefficient. 

Under  the  BaU+1  option,  the  ELD  can  only  be  implemented  with  Directives  leading  to  a 
transposition cost of €4 million per updated or new implementing directive (see Annex 12).  

Apart from its scope, the focus and the legal requirements of the ELD have an impact on its 
potential to reach the policy objectives. Some of the main issues are discussed below. 

The way to integrate fast decision making procedure under the current legal framework of the 
ELD  would  be  to  introduce  staged  energy  labelling  with  gradually  increasing  'A-levels'. 

58  The  estimated  savings  potential  of  31  Mtoe  from  commercial  heating  and  water  heating  appliances  would 
remain  outside  the  ELD.  However,  the  division  between  residential  and  commercial  sector  savings  potential 
must  be  seen  indicative,  as  there  is  no  clear  cut  between  residential  and  commercial  sector  heating  and  water 
heating  appliances;  the  main  difference  being  the  size  of  the  appliances.  Thus,  the  savings  figure  include  the 
impact of the labelling of some 25% heating and water heating appliances foreseen for residential use but sold to 
commercial customers. 
59 Ecodesign preparatory study lot 5: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  
60 Average specific EU emissions in 2003 for EU-25: 400g CO2 per kWh, EURELECTRIC, Environmental 
Statistics of the European Electricity Industry, Trends in Environmental Performance 2003-2004. 
61  On  assumed  electricity  price  of  €0,136/kWh,  as 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  
62 Savings in electricity (TWh) are converted to savings in primary energy (Mtoes). A conversion factor 0,086 is 
used based on the EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical pocketbook, 2007/2008.   

the  Ecodesign  MEEuP  methodology: 

in 

28 

 
                                                 
However,  although  the  ELD  does  not  prohibit  this,  it  would  be  difficult  to  predict  the 
technological development and assess the corresponding impacts over a long period of time.  

Article  5  of  the  ELD  makes  provision  on  the  content  of  the  implementing  Directives  in 
order to cover mail order and other sales situations, where the potential customer cannot be 
expected  to  see  the  appliance  displayed.  The  three  most  recent  implementing  Directives63 
make requirements on the provision of labels and information in mail orders and in other 
distance selling, including the Internet.  

Manufacturers  and  retailers  sometimes  provide  energy  labels  or  other  type  of  energy 
efficiency related information when advertising in media, depending on the type of product, 
size  of  advertising  and  media  used,  but  in  practice  only  when  the  appliances  are  “A”-
graded.  Manufactures  and  retailers  selling  appliances  below  A-grade  do  not  publish  such 
information,  if  it  is  not  specifically  required  in  the  implementing  Directives,  as  it  would 
harm sales.  

The  current  wide  measurement  tolerances  for  the  regulated  appliances  often  allow 
manufacturers  to  claim  that  appliances  are  of  higher  class  than  they  would  be  under  tighter 
tolerances.  This  can  partially  affect  the  credibility  of  the  label.  The  situation  can  not  be 
corrected  under  business  as  usual.  The  enforcement  authorities  have  not  reported  any  badly 
displayed  or  missing  labels  since  the  beginning  of  the  energy  labelling  scheme  although  a 
recent  study  shows  the  contrary64.  Also,  several  actors  have  recently  reported  compliance 
problems  or  requested  strengthened  market  surveillance65.  The  necessary  Community 
legislation  on  market  surveillance  is  in  place  but  it  does  not  seem  to  be  adequately 
implemented. 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  energy  label  would  be  used  by  third  parties  for  voluntary 
labelling under no legal rules or agreed approval procedure. The voluntary use within the EU 
has  not  yet  led  to  major  identified  problems  but  could  potentially  do  so  without  legal 
protection and clear framework rules with the major risk of jeopardizing the value of the EU 
energy  label  and  the  investments  made  since  years  by  all  parties  involved.  This  cannot  be 
adjusted under the current ELD. 

As  to  the  stakeholder  preference,  interviews  conducted  for  the  background  study  showed 
highest interest in reinforcing the implementation of the articles of the present ELD while the 
stakeholder  consultation  for  the  impact  assessment  showed  strongest  preference  for 
broadening the scope (option 3). The background study was based on a sample of interviews, 
while  the  stakeholder  consultation  included  all  relevant  stakeholders;  the  stakeholder 
consultation meeting allowed stakeholders to consider the pros and cons in an open manner 
(see Annex 13).  

5.2 Policy option 2: Non-regulatory action 
This policy option looks at the potential for non-regulatory action to further reinforce energy 
labelling  in  combination  with  other  relevant  tools,  such  as  ELD,  Ecodesign  Directive, 
Ecolabel,  Energy-Star,  national/regional  schemes  (such  Blaue  Engel  or  Nordic  Swan). 
Synergies and complementary with other energy efficiency activities would continue mainly 
with  Ecodesign,  Energy-Star  and  Ecolabel  as  depicted  in  Annex  2.  Possible  synergies  or 
overlaps could appear with the EPBD and ESD. Voluntary initiatives could not be monitored 

63 2003/66/EC, 2002/40/EC and 2002/31/EC. 
64 Survey of Compliance Directive 92/75/EEC, Draft Final Report to the Commission, 25 August 2008. 
65 E.g. ANEC-R&T-2006-ENV-008 (final), January 2007; CECED paper on the Commission Proposals on the 
Marketing of Products: COM (2007) 37 and COM (2007) 53, PP 07-01, named ''Fair play for all economic 
operators'', 24 April 2007. STEM test on fridges, May 2007; Intelligent Energy for Europe project, CEECAP, no. 
EIE / 05 / 195 / SI2.419686 of June 2008, CECED: http://www.ceced.org/ 

29 

 
                                                 
under  the  current  legal  framework  and  their  impacts  on  the  other  instruments  could  not  be 
controlled. 

Voluntary initiatives by industry (self-regulation) may be an alternative to legislation or may 
be  a  complementary  measure,  which  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  the  legislative 
objective.  While  the  voluntary  initiatives  taken  by  CECED66  to  set  energy  reduction  targets 
for  refrigerators,  freezers,  and  washing  machines  and  dishwashers  have  complemented  the 
compulsory energy labelling schemes for these products (BaU), CECED is not proposing any 
more  voluntary  schemes  but  prefers  action  under  the  combination  of  mandatory  Ecodesign 
and ELD. Similarly EICTA has abandoned the use of self-commitments as an alternative to 
EU  legislation  under  Article  95  for  consumer  electronics.  For  several  years  members  of 
EICTA run a self-regulatory initiative for reducing the stand-by energy consumption of TVs 
and DVD players. Though it had positive effects, it was considered not to be a viable option 
for this sector where the market is very fragmented and in which the self-regulatory initiative 
could not ensure level playing field for the industry.   

Self-regulatory  action  by  the  industry  would  help  to  avoid  administrative  cost  for  European 
and national administrations. However, as comparative labelling schemes must be set for each 
product  group,  voluntary  labelling  of  different  product  groups  would  risk  using  different 
principles in labelling schemes, which is one of the main reasons that has triggered mandatory 
labelling  across  the  world  (see  Annex  7).  This  was  also  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the 
development  of  the  ELD  on  1992.  However,  although  there  is  no  question  in  replacing  the 
ELD  by  self-regulatory  measures,  these  measures  could  maybe  complement  the  ELD.  The 
problem  is  that  voluntary  action  seldom  includes the  whole  industrial  sector  but  leaves  free 
riders outside the scheme67, which can affect competitiveness of those who commit obeying 
the rules.  

As to other energy-using products, no proposal for voluntary labelling has been made. 

Voluntary labelling could be set at Member State (MS) level. However, the ELD superseded a 
number of largely voluntary energy labelling initiatives at Member States in order to achieve 
a harmonised provision of product information and to ensure the use of harmonised standards 
avoiding  market  fragmentation68.  Since  1992,  the  need  for  harmonised  approaches  in  the 
Internal Market have further increased, not reduced, so national/regional action in this domain 
is  opposed  by  the  industry.  Also,  self-regulatory  initiatives  would  require  endorsement  and 
monitoring  by  Commission  and  Member  States  to  avoid  affecting  the  credibility  of  the 
official  EU  scheme.  This  would  reduce  the  benefits  in  terms  of  administrative  burden  and 
leave various loopholes for possible legal action where necessary. 

Self-regulation  would  not  provide  a  harmonised  framework  applicable  across  the  Internal 
Market,  therefore  it  could  not  be  used  for  the  setting  of  levels  for  public  procurement  and 
fiscal  incentives.  Several  parallel  labelling  schemes  could  risk  increasing  the  cost  for  the 
consumer  to  obtain  relevant  information  on  product  characteristics  (manufacturers  would 
have  to  transfer  the  cost  of  market  fragmentation  to  consumers)  and  lead  even  greater 
information asymmetries and bounded rationality, as has been the case in the past. This could 
lead  to  social  costs  as  low  income  households  would  be  the  first  to  suffer  from  irrational 
purchase  choices.  Also,  during  the  stakeholder  consultation,  industry  expressed  their  clear 
preference  for  mandatory  labelling  in  order  to  create  level  playing  field69.  Under  voluntary 
schemes,  companies  whose  products  perform  badly  in  terms  of  environmental  impact  are 

66 http://www.ceced.org/  
67 Such as the Europump voluntary circulator labelling scheme: 
http://work.sitedirect.se/sites/europump/europump/index.php  
68 Background study: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation  
69 See e.g. http://www.ceced.org/  

30 

 
                                                 
unwilling  to  display  a  label  on  their  products,  catalogues,  media,  Internet,  etc.,  as  it  would 
negatively affect sales.  

Thus,  it  is  estimated  that  while  non-regulatory  action  could  in  theory  help  to  broaden 
somewhat the scope and focus and to decreasing administrative burden, in practice there are 
no signs of self regulatory initiatives that could be considered as a valid alternative to a legal 
scheme.  Accordingly,  the  estimated  savings  of  this  policy  option  are  equal  to  the  baseline 
(policy  option  1a)  and  clearly  less  than  in  sub-policy  option  BaU  +  1  (1b),  that  is,  no 
additional significant savings are expected from this policy option. 

Stakeholders did not support policy option 2.   

5.3  Policy  option  3:  Amend  (recast)  the  ELD,  including  broadened  scope  with  energy-
related products 
The  Ecodesign  Directive  currently  only  applies  to  energy-using  products  and  the  ELD  to 
household  appliances.  The  Communication  on  the  Sustainable  Consumption  and  Industrial 
Policy  (SCP/SIP)  considers  enlarging  the  scope  of  the  two  Directives  also  to  all  energy-
related products, maintaining the exception of means of transport, which already is subject to 
separate policies and legislation for reducing environmental impacts.  

The broadening of the scope of the ELD would be coordinated with other product policy tools 
such  as  Ecodesign,  Ecolabels  and  Energy-Star  ensuring  complementarity  and  coordination. 
The  amendment  of  the  ELD  includes  the  extension  of  its  scope  to  energy-related  products. 
The  recast  of  the  ELD  would  include  requirements  for  implementing  measures  to  identify 
labelling classes at a level below which public authorities would not be allowed to procure or 
provide  incentives  such  as  rebate  schemes.  The  level  in  general  should  not  be  more 
burdensome  to  public  finance  than  under  the  present  procurement  practices  taking  into 
account the full life time of the product. Thus there will be significant impetus for choosing 
the  more  energy  and  resource  performing  products  whilst  encouraging  and  inducing 
innovation for the industry (see Annex 11). 

Below  these  aspects  are  analysed  in  two  sub-sections  focusing  on  impacts  from  the 
broadening  of  the  scope  on  the  one  hand  and  on  the  expected  impacts  from  measures  to 
improve  the  functioning  of  the  scheme,  including  the  provision  of  a  harmonized  basis  for 
public procurement and incentives.  

5.3.1 Expected impacts from a broader scope of the ELD 

The background study provides ample information on the expected impacts of the amendment 
and  broadening  of  the  scope  of  the  ELD.  It  identifies  no  negative  social  or  environmental 
impacts. Potential economic and environmental benefits are identified depending on the exact 
scope  of  the  amendments.  The  main  savings  potential  from  a  broadened  scope  would  be 
expected  to  come  from  products  such  as  heating  or  cooling  in  the  commercial  or  industrial 
sectors. Technical savings potential in commercial and industrial sectors is estimated to 157 
Mtoe by 2020. How much of this potential could be reached by product labelling would have 
to be considered in separate product specific studies70.  

Commercial refrigeration, industrial motors, windows, tyres, and construction materials have 
been proposed by stakeholders as possible energy-related products to be labelled. However, 
tyres  are  excluded  as  belonging  to  'means  of  transport'.  Also,  a  separate  proposal  on  the 
labelling of tyres is under preparation by the Commission.   

70  A  revised  ELD  would  not  save  any  energy.  This  will  be  achieved  only  after  the  development  of  product 
specific implementing measures. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  shown  in  Annex  9,  commercial  refrigerators,  freezers,  chillers,  display  cabinets  and 
vending machines are expected to provide savings of some 5 TWh (about 0.5 Mtoe) by 2020, 
corresponding  to  a  reduction  of  emissions  around  2  Mt  of  CO2.  The  border  line  between 
'household'  and  'commercial'  refrigeration  is  not  clearly  defined;  the  bigger  power  range  of 
'household' refrigeration and freezer appliances are also used e.g. in the SMEs, which lowers 
the  above  savings  figure  (it  is  estimated  that  some  25%  of  the  smaller  power  range 
'commercial refrigeration' is already included into the implementing Directives on household 
refrigeration and freezer appliances)71.  

Commercial heating is estimated to save some 3-4 Mtoe by 2020, corresponding to reduced 
emissions of some 9 Mt of CO2. The savings potential of industrial products would have to be 
considered  in  separate  technical  studies  and  impact  assessments  but  information  from  the 
Ecodesign preparatory study on industrial motors, pumps and fans shows that energy labelling 
under ELD might not  be  the  best choice due to the specificities of the market for industrial 
products and to the latest developments in standards (see Annex 9). 

As shown in the Annex 9, based on the background study, windows would offer an estimated 
€  4  billion/a  savings  corresponding  to  25  million  tonnes  of  CO2,  if  conventional  double 
glazing  was  replaced  by  low-e  windows.  Product  specific  technical  studies  and  impact 
assessment  analysis  would  have  to  be  developed  in  order  to  asses  the  feasibility  of  setting 
labelling  requirements  on  windows,  taking  into  account  climatic  zones.  This  might  require 
developing  the  necessary  multi-criteria  scheme  based  on  different  weather  requirements  in 
different climatic zones and altitudes as is done in the US and in some Member States, such as 
in  Finland.  However,  it  would  be  important  to  consider  the  related  impact  of  the  Energy 
Performance of Buildings Directive, which sets minimum energy efficiency requirements on 
buildings  and  several  of  its  components;  windows  may  be  subject  to  specific  requirements 
under this Directive in the line of heating and cooling systems, chimneys etc. 

The  impact  assessment  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  shows  that  the  reduction  potential  in  the 
construction sector is 78 Mt of CO2 due to the use of construction products. These reductions 
would be partly due to the combination of the product specific approach of the Ecodesign and 
Energy  Labelling  Directives  but  first  of  all  to  installation  requirements  under  the  Energy 
Performance of Buildings Directive. How much of this technical potential could be realised 
with  help  of  a  labelling  scheme  would  have  to  be  backed  up  by  a  technical  study,  which 
should also look at the suitability of the construction product market for product labelling (see 
further discussion on the impact of different types of markets in Annex 9).  

Energy-related  products  could  also  alternatively  be  covered  by  a  Directive  of  the  legislator 
(co-decision) as is the case of cars (Directive on the labelling of cars is under revision) ortyres 
(proposal under consideration). 

In summary, compared with the baseline, a conservative estimate is that broadening the scope 
of  the  ELD  to  energy-related  products72  could  result  in  additional  energy  savings,  in 
conjunction  with  simultaneous  additional  Ecodesign  measures,  based  on  the  above  priority 
product  groups  considered  alone,  in  the  magnitude  of  27  Mtoe73  by  2020,  corresponding  to 

71 Ecodesign studies: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  
72  The  estimate  exclude  the  impact  of  product  groups  with  possibly  very  important  savings  potential  (e.g. 
commercial and industrial lighting) but does not yet consider any industrial products in proper sense. Sufficient 
information for further considerations of these products will be available from the current and future Ecodesign 
preparatory studies. 
73  Savings  in  electricity  (TWh)  are  converted  to  savings  in  primary  energy  (Mtoes).  A  conversion  factor  of 
0,086 is used based on the EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical pocketbook, 2007/2008.  

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
emission reductions of some 78 Mt of CO274
  (excluding the technical savings potential from 
construction products of which the majority would be stemming from the EPBD). Compared 
with  BaU  +  1  option,  this  would  correspond  to  additional  savings  of  some  5  Mtoe  when 
extending  the  ELD  only  to  windows  and  to  selected  cooling  and  heating  appliances  in  the 
commercial sector. 

These  figures  seem  a  realistic  estimate  given  that,  although  there  is  an  important  technical 
savings  potential  in  the  other  energy-using  products,  many  of  them  beyond  the  household 
sector  are  often  not  sold  to  consumers  but  to  specialised  people  or  to  OEM  manufacturers, 
who  do  not  sell/purchase  these  products  from  outlets/shops  but  directly  from  other 
manufacturers.  Due  to  these  market  differences,  the  product  specific  impact  assessments 
would  have  to  carefully  consider  what  kind  of  energy  labelling  information  and  procedure 
would  best  address  the  specificities  of  the  markets  of  each  individual  product  group.  The 
revised  ELD  could  provide  the  scope  for  this  leaving  the  final  considerations  for  product 
specific technical studies and impact assessments at the level of the implementing measures.  

As  to  employment  effects,  the  impact  assessment  on  the  amendment  of  the  Ecodesign 
2005/32/EC  Directive  identifies  some  evidence  for  job  creation  in  Europe  due  to  energy 
efficiency measures. While no evidence is available on the relations between energy labelling 
and  employment,  there  are  no  reasons  to  assume  negative  employment  impacts  induced  by 
energy labelling. The labelling of products does not affect the overall demand for products; it 
just shifts demand towards more efficient products, which basically include more technology 
and added value, hence stimulates innovation.  

5.3.2 Expected impacts from improved functioning of the ELD 

Apart from its scope, the focus and the precise legal requirements of the ELD have an impact 
on  its  potential  to  reach  and  further  contribute  to  the  policy  objectives.  Some  of  the  main 
issues with impact on achieving the objectives are discussed below. 

In  order  to  achieve  more  dynamic  labelling  the  Commission  could  adopt  implementing 
measures defining staged introduction of labelling thresholds defined in advance for ensuring 
that the "A" class would be populated only by a limited number of appliances (as far as it is 
technically  possible 
technological  development  and  assessing 
corresponding impacts). As for option 1b, dynamism largely depends on the resources made 
available  within  the  Commission  to  develop  new  measures  and  on  the  support  of  the 
Regulatory Committee. The outcome sought by the increased dynamism is the frequency of 
updated  labelling  scales,  which  should  happen  when  the  A  class  is  populated  by  more  than 
50% of appliances.  

to  predict  products' 

The extended ELD could provide a framework for public procurement and incentive schemes 
by Member States as shown in the SCP/SIP. Many Member States already provide incentives 
(e.g.  rebate  schemes)  for  energy  performing  products  and  make  significant  efforts  to  green 
their  public  procurement  practice;  however,  the  extent  and  level  of  this  may  differ  from 
country to country.  

The  impact  of  harmonised  energy  efficient  public  procurement  and  incentives  has  been 
analysed  in  Annex  11.  On  public  procurement,  the  main  conclusion  is  that  even  very 
ambitious  public  procurement  requirements  can  be  less  expensive  than  current  procurement 

74 Total savings potential from heating and water heating appliances is estimated to 77 Mtoe by 2020 of which 
energy  labelling  would  catch  close  to  20  Mtoe  (household  18  Mtoe  +  commercial  0,5  Mtoe).  The  rest  of  the 
savings (57 Mtoe) would come from minimum energy performance standards and EBPD requirments.  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
practices and save substantial amounts of energy and CO2 emissions; public procurement can 
be  used  to  accompany  market  transformation  towards  more  energy  efficient  goods.  The 
product groups considered show considerable savings potential. Public procurement rules on 
water  heaters  would  save  18  Mt  of  CO2  and  €1.5 billion over  the life cycle of the product. 
Similarly,  energy  efficient  public  procurement  of  street  lighting  would  save  8  Mt  of  CO2, 
corresponding to € 320 million over the life time of the product.  

Combining  labelling  with  incentive  schemes  delivers  equally  positive  and  dynamic  effects. 
An example on washing machines in the Netherlands, backed by a broad literature survey for 
energy-using and energy-related products indicates that for every doubling of the cumulative 
volume  sold,  costs  for  these  products  would  decrease  between  15-20 %.75  The  main 
conclusion  is  that  the  inclusion  of  provisions  for  incentives  encourages  sales  of  innovative 
products. This is also important for learning effects.  

In  order  to  further  minimize  fragmentation  in  the  Internal  Market,  it  would  be  beneficial  to 
introduce  harmonized  measures  within  the  context  of  the  ELD  along  the  lines  of  what  the 
Legislator  recently  introduced  under  the  Energy  Star  Regulation76.  In  this  way,  the  ELD 
would  contribute  solving  information  asymmetries  for  public  procurers  in  line  with  Energy 
Star by showing the 'hidden' costs of use over the expected life span. Thus, the revised ELD 
should  aim  at  linking  Member  State  public  procurement  and  incentive  schemes  to  the 
minimum efficiency thresholds indicated for these purposes in product specific implementing 
measures, backed by an impact assessment.  

Article  5  of  the  ELD  makes  provision  on  the  content  of  the  implementing  Directives  in 
order to cover mail order and other sales situations, where the potential customer cannot be 
expected to see the appliance displayed. As mentioned earlier manufacturers and retailers 
selling appliances publish regularly information on the efficiency level, even if not required 
in the implementing Directive, when the appliance is rated in the “A” class but fail to do so 
for obvious reasons when the appliance scores lower. This reduces the potential impact of 
the label. It is not expected that the situation would change without mandatory requirements 
on the provision of information in mail orders and in other distance selling, including the 
Internet.  

Legal  provisions  on  adequate  information  would  be  particularly  important  in  the  case  of 
advertising  in  the  context  of  distant  selling  through  various  media,  such  as  the  Internet, 
newspapers,  leaflets  etc.  Such  information  provision  would  help  to  convey  the  message  on 
comparative  negative  environmental  impacts  (externalities)  of  all  products  covered  by 
implementing  measures/Directives  and  reduce  information  asymmetries.  Administrative 

75 Junginger et al (2008) Technological learning in the energy sector. This study has been performed within the 
framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate 
Change (WAB). 
76 The current list of products covered include: Appliances (Battery Chargers, Clothes Washers, Dehumidifiers, 
Dishwashers,  Refrigerators  &  Freezers,  Room  AC,  Room  Air  Cleaners,  Water  Coolers  )  Heating  &  Cooling 
(Air-source Heat Pumps, Boilers, Central AC, Ceiling Fans, Dehumidifiers, Furnaces, Geothermal Heat Pumps, 
Home Sealing (Insulation), Light Commercial, Programmable Thermostats, Room AC, Ventilating Fans) Home 
Envelope  (Home  Sealing  (Insulation  and  Air  Sealing),  Roof  Products,  Windows,  Doors,  &  Skylights),  Home 
Electronics  (Battery  Charging  Systems,  Cordless  Phones,  Combination  Units,  Digital-to-Analog  Converter 
Boxes (DTAs), DVD Products, External Power Adapters, Home Audio, Televisions, VCRs), Office Equipment 
(Computers,  Copiers  and  Fax  Machines,  Digital  Duplicators,  Notebook  Computers/Tablet  PCs,  Mailing 
Machines,  External  Power  Adapters,  Monitors,  Printers,  Scanners,  and  All-in-Ones),  Lighting  (Compact 
Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs), Residential Light Fixtures, Ceiling Fans, Exit Signs), Commercial Food Service 
(Commercial  Dishwashers,  Commercial  Fryers,  Commercial  Hot  Food  Holding  Cabinets,  Commercial  Ice 
Machines, Commercial Solid Door Refrigerators & Freezers, Commercial Steam  Cookers), Other Commercial 
Products (Battery Charging Systems, Exit Signs, External Power Adapters, Roof Products, Vending Machines, 
Water Coolers). 

34 

 
 
                                                 
burden  for  manufacturers  and  retailers  would  be  limited  to  advertising  in  the  case  of  low-
efficient appliances given that the provision of labelling information on 'A' level appliances is 
already commonplace. Accordingly, the ELD should allow setting requirements to display the 
energy  class  of  a  product  in  mail  order,  media  advertising  and  other  distant  sales  situations 
leaving the details of these requirements for each product specific implementing measure.  

Input  from  stakeholders  showed  that  there  is  a  need  for  legal  protection  of  the  energy  label 
against possible fraudulent use. The label could primarily be protected by public law which 
means that under the basis of the ELD (Article 95 of the EC Treaty), Member States protect 
the label through market surveillance and enforce it with the means of administrative law (e.g. 
fines,  decision  or  banning  of  the  product).  Some  stakeholders  requested  private  law 
protection, which would mean that the energy label be protected by intellectual property law 
in  the  territory  of  the  European  Economic  Area  (this  in  practice  would  mean  a  sort  of 
trademark  protection).  However,  the  label  as  it  looks  currently,  due  to  its  commonplace 
elements,  cannot  be  protected  with  the  means  of  intellectual  property  law  unless  a  specific 
trademark  is  added  to  the  label.  The  impact  of  such  an  exercise  should  be  subject  to  a 
thorough analysis (for example, even the "Community flag" is not the property of the EU, but 
of the Council of Europe). 

A discussion paper on verification and enforcement77 showed that one of the shortcomings of 
the ELD was the enforcement of the labelling in the field. Although the market surveillance 
authorities have discretion to decide what to do with a retailer/manufacturer that has a non-
compliant label (normally a warning, fine or banning of the product), enforcement of proper 
labelling is often weak and lack of resources is cited as the reason. Therefore, a framework on 
better  and  less  burdensome  enforcement  in  the  amendment  of  the  ELD  could  be  useful. 
However,  this  would  not  include  any  additional  market  surveillance  but  just  the 
implementation  of  the  existing  requirements  stated  in  Community  legislation.  In  particular, 
aligning requirements with the Ecodesign Directive seems appropriate. 

The background study estimates that the administrative and transposition cost together is 5 €78 
million  for  the  development  of  new  implementing  Directives.  The  cost  for  upgrading  the 
existing ones is estimated to € 4.7 million per Directive79 (see more detail in Chapter 5.5 and 
in Annex 12). 

Stakeholders welcomed the broadening of the scope to energy-related products, which would 
offer additional savings opportunities. Italy and UK reminded about the importance of impact 
assessment  in  defining  the  products  to  be  covered.  Euroace  did  not  support  labelling  of 
insulation  products.  Vehicle  parts  were  considered  out  of  scope.  Also,  additional 
improvements  to  the  ELD  functioning,  such  as  requirements  on  display  of  label  in  distance 
selling and on media, legal protection of the scheme and the use of implementing regulations 
or  decisions  instead  of  Directives,  was  supported  by  stakeholders.  Consumer  groups,  green 
NGOs  and  Eurocommerce  requested  clear  labels  focusing  on  energy  consumption  in  use  as 
the main information. Consumer groups and NGOs also requested labelling information to be 
indicated in second-hand shops. Industry, in particularly CECED and Marcogaz requested that 
each  actor  be  held  responsible  for  its  tolerances  (manufacturers  vs.  test  laboratories)  and 
requested explicit figures on these tolerances. Support to implementation through Regulations 
rather than Directives was unanimous due to its cost-effectiveness (For details see results of 

77  Frank  Klinckenberg:  Discussion  Paper.  Experiences  with  Verification  and  Enforcement  of  the  EU  Energy 
Label. 
78 €1 million of administrative cost for the revision and €4 million for the transposition by Member States. 
79  €720.000  for  the  development/revision  of  the  implementing  Directive  and  €4  for  transposition  by  Member 
States. See chapter 5.5. 

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation). 

consultation 

stakeholder 

Annex 

13 

in 

and 

on 

5.4  Policy  option  4:  Repeal  the  ELD  and  implement  energy  labelling  within  the 
Ecodesign Directive 
As  discussed  above  and  in  the  Annex  10,  repealing  the  ELD  without  implementing  its 
provisions in other Community legislation is considered as an unacceptable option both from 
the point of view of stakeholders and of its expected impacts. The ELD is the well known EU-
wide instrument to address potential purchasers with comparative information on consumption and 
cost of an appliance in the use phase. Ecodesign sets minimum requirements for putting products on 
the  market  and  addresses  all  environmental  parameters  throughout  the  whole  life  cycle  of  the 
product.  

Under  the  EPBD,  the  performance  of  the  whole  building  (overall  performance  of  the  building 
integrating  the  physical  characteristics;  building  shell  and  its  design,  shape,  construction  material 
etc.) is labelled, including lighting, heating and air-conditioning installations in the relevant climate 
zone. Some Member States may even include in the label the impact of other electric appliances 
although  this  is  not  a  mandatory  requirement.  That  is,  apart  from  selected  appliances,  EPBD 
includes the whole system and its controls. This is important as even the most efficient appliance 
(e.g. a motor) can not compensate losses due to bad controls or system characteristics. The same 
applies in the other way around; even the most efficient system does not help avoiding the losses of 
an inefficient appliance. Moreover, the EPBD falls under the national building codes and the Article 
175 of the Treaty while the ELD is based on Article 95. 

Accordingly, this policy option includes repealing the ELD and implementing its provisions 
instead  through  the  Ecodesign  Directive  as  envisaged  in  the  Action  Plan  on  SCP/SIP.  The 
Ecolabel and Energy Star would continue coexisting with synergies and complementarity, as 
described in Annex 2, with the difference that Ecodesign would cover the application areas of 
both the ELD (comparative labelling of products on the market) and the Eco-desing Directive 
(setting minimum requirements for putting products on the market).  

One Directive instead of two would reduce the number of legislative instruments but would 
create other problems.  

First, there would be a need to integrate the eight existing labelling implementing Directives 
into  the  Ecodesign  framework  where  they  do  not  fit,  in  particular  with  the  model 
implementing  measure  defined  in  Ecodesign  Annex  VII.  Also,  as  identified  in  the  draft 
SCP/SIP Communication, the amendment of the Ecodesign Directive beyond its Article 1 (on 
scope)  would  not  be  appropriate  considering  that  the  Directive  was  adopted  recently  (July 
2005), is not transposed yet by all Member States and is in the process of being implemented 
with the first draft measures being submitted to a Regulatory Committee.  
Second,  the  Ecodesign  Directive  sets  requirements  (technical  specifications  to  be  met  by 
products) on manufacturers only, while the ELD sets requirements also on retailers (dispay of 
the label).The Ecodesign Directive addresses all significant environmental parameters during 
the life cycle of the product while the ELD focuses on energy and other consumables during 
the use phase; the message is comparative and targets product performance that is directly of 
interest to the consumer. Drastic changes would be needed to incorporate the ELD provisions 
and 
the  Ecodesign  Directive,  which  would  be 
disproportionate  compared  with  the  benefits,  and  would  risk  complicating  rather  than 
simplifying the legal framework.  

implementing  Directives 

into 

its 

Putting  requirements  of  to  these  two  different  legislative  instruments  within  one  single 
Directive  could  seriously  endanger  the  clarity  of  both  Directives.  As  described  above,  the 

36 

 
  
ELD has led to success because it provides a powerful marketing tool for manufacturers and 
retailers, and a clear message for customers (buy “A” to save money). It focuses on product 
performance in use phase directly of interest to consumers. 

The criteria for successful (energy) labelling, as presented above, are decisive in assuring that 
information  asymmetries  and  bounded  rationality  are  avoided.  The  energy  labelling  scheme 
must  allow  end-users  to  easily  compare  which  product  is  more  resource  efficient  during  its 
use phase than another, thus help to avoid buying products that are cheaper at the purchase but 
more expensive over the life cycle of the product.  

In  addition,  the  lack  of  applicable  methodology  that  would  allow  rating,  comparing  and 
ranking  products  on  their  global  environmental  performance  (mixing  energy  consumption 
with  emissions  to  air  or  soil,  noise  or  recyclability  etc)  throughout  lifecycle  makes  that  the 
introduction of a comparative “Ecodesign” label is not a feasible option at this stage. This is 
part of the reason why the Communication on SCP/SIP considers reviewing the situation in 
2012. 

Third,  the  repeal  of  the  ELD  would  not  be  understood  by  many  stakeholders  and  by  third 
countries that copied the scheme (see Annex 7) or intend to introduce it.  

What is said about public procurement under the policy option 3 and about administrative cost 
in chapter 5.5 would also apply under the policy option 4.  

Stakeholders rejected this option, including the indication of other environmental information 
over  the  life  cycle  of  the  product  on  the  label.  Consumer  groups,  supported  by  Italy  and 
France,  saw  a  particular  danger  in  mixing  the  energy  label  with  other  environmental 
information.  They  requested  care  in  indicating  any  further  such  information  on  the  label; 
''consumers  need  a  simple  message  and  carbon  discussion  should  be  kept  out  of  the  label''. 
Eurocommerce  reminded  that  sales  personnel  can  not  take  the  responsibility  to  convey 
complex  environmental 
label  must  remind  simple. 
Environmental NGOs stressed the urgency to address energy consumption without affecting 
other  environmental  parameters.  Within  the  industry,  CECED  did  not  see  the  indication  of 
e.g. CO2 neither feasible nor enforceable while Orgalime considered that it could be useful to 
open the label for the indication of other environmental parameters. (For details see results of 
the 
on 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation. 

to  consumers; 

consultation 

information 

stakeholder 

Annex 

and 

the 

13 

in 

5.5 Administrative and transposition cost 

For the EU administration, the background study estimates the administrative cost to amend 
the  ELD  framework  to  about  €1  million  to  which  a  transposition  costs  of  some  4  €  million 
should be added for the Member States. The cost for the development of new implementing 
measures or upgrading the existing ones is estimated to €720.000 per Directive80. The figures 
do not include overhead costs. 

The cost for transposition of (implementing) Directives by the Member States is estimated to 
about  €4  million81  per  new  or  upgraded  implementing  directive  (see  Annex  12).  Assuming 

80 The background study estimates that the administrative cost of developing a new Implementing directive is 
about € 720 000 per new Directive and that the revision of an existing Implementing directive would be half of 
this cost € 360 000)80. However, halving the cost for the revision of an existing Implementing directive is based 
on an assumption that the revision process would involve less work. However, revision of a Directive follows the 
same legislative process and in both cases a solid background study is needed, as the technological and market 
development makes the results of the initial study useless for revision. Accordingly, the cost of € 720 000 is used 
in this impact assessment for developing a new or revising an existing Implementing Directive/measure.  
81 27 Member States x €150.000 = €4.040.000. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
that  the  eight  existing  implementing  Directives  would  be  revised  and  two  new  ones82  be 
developed  before  the  adoption  of  a  possibly  revised  ELD  the  total  administrative  and 
transposition cost for this action would be about € 47 million83 under the option 1b. 

Would  any  further 
administrative and transposition cost would be € 4.7 million84 per Directive. 

implementing  Directives  be  developed  or  upgraded, 

the 

total 

Transposition  costs  would  be  saved  if  the  ELD  was  implemented  with  Regulations  or 
Decisions instead of Directives. It can be assumed that, on the period of 2009-2011, about 10 
new  implementing  measures  would  be  developed  on  the  basis  of  the  on-going  preparatory 
studies85,  which  alone  would  correspond  to  the  savings  of  total  transposition  cost  of  €40 
million. To these savings should also be added the savings from the fact that there would be 
no resources needed for the follow-up of the national transposition, infringement procedures 
or similar. Furthermore, it would bring important advantages to the Internal Market and the 
industry as the absence of national transposition would ensure that implementing legislation 
came into force at the same time across the Internal Market in an identical form.  

The  administrative  cost  caused  due  to  labelling  activity  are  closely  related  to  the  overall 
activities of the product policy, in particularly that of the Ecodesign Directive, as described in 
the  impact  assessment  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive.  The  main  activities  causing  the 
administrative costs for Member States and the Commission are: 

•  Definition of ELD implementing Directives/measures; Ecodesign preparatory studies 

and product specific impact assessments.   

•  The extension of the product scope of the ELD would broaden the choice of product 
groups  for  which  implementing  Directives/measures  could  be  adopted.  If  this  would 
happen,  the  administrative  expenditure  would  be  covered  by  the  usual  annual 
budgetary allocation.  

•  Costs for the Comitology procedure. (See Annex 12.)  

The expected integrated decision structures of the Ecodesign Directive and the ELD and the 
informative role of the eco-label suggested in the SCP/SIP Action Plan will provide synergies 
which guarantee that resources are used as cost-efficiently as possible.  

As to the administrative cost for manufacturers and retailers, extending the scope of the ELD 
implies  that  more  products  can  potentially  fall  under  the  ELD  implementing  measures.  The 
total administrative burden impact depends on the nature of these measures and the number of 
products affected by each implementing measure. Therefore it is here only possible to provide 
a general indication of the possible impacts on administrative burden. 

The  administrative  burden  due  to  a  possible  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  ELD,  and 
subsequent increased number of implementing measures, is composed of actions as follows:    

- 
- 
- 

printing labels and including them in product packaging (paid by manufacturers) 
putting labels on products displayed in shops (paid by  retailers) 
testing  products  (paid  by  manufacturers  but  usually  already  part  of  the  cost  for 
assessing compliance with other legislation like the Ecodesign Directive) 

82 Planned on TVs, boilers and water heaters. 
83 Administrative cost for developing/upgrading 10 implementing Directives x €720.000 and transposition cost 
of 10 implementing Directives x €4. 
84 Administrative cost of €720.000 + transposition cost of 27 Member States x €150.000. 
85  The  most  immediate  candidates  being  vacuum  cleaners,  household  fans,  comfort  fans,  commercial 
refrigerators,  commercial  freezers,  certain  types  of  solid  fuel  boilers  and  household  lighting  appliances  
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

industry 
manufacturers). 

'self-policing'  of  voluntary  agreements, 

'challenges'  etc.  (paid  by 

To this can be added the activities paid by the governments for the 'enforcement' in shops and 
'enforcement'  of  the  accuracy  of  efficiency  information.  As  can  be  seen,  for 
the 
manufacturers, administrative burden is limited to printing of the label and the strip. The rest 
of the activities will take place as part of the normal business. The information provided in the 
label  is  already  readily  available  for  the  manufacturer  and  provided  also  in  product 
documentation. The printing costs of several hundred euros in relation to an appliance and the 
related  information  documentation  and  manuals  and  packaging  seems  negligible.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  only  the  black-and-white  strip  needs  to  be  put  into  each  product  packaging.  The 
coloured  background  of  the  label  is  to  be  provided  in  limited  numbers  by  manufacturers  to 
retailers for affixing on products to be displayed in shops, not for every product shipped (see 
Annex  4).  Additionally,  an  information  fiche  is  provided  with  more  complex  technical 
information for customers willing to get more detailed technical information on the product 
(see Annex 5).    

It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  administrative  burden  for  manufacturers  seems  very  small  given 
that the existing provisions would not require 'additional' information but rather the provision 
of  already  existing  information  in  a  given  agreed  format.  It  must  be  noted  also  that  no 
additional  market  surveillance  is  requested  but  only  the  application  of  the  existing 
Community  legislation  on  market  surveillance  in  line  with  the  Ecodesign  Directive.  For 
retailers, administrative cost is the cost in displaying the label on the product. The burden for 
retailers of putting the label on the right appliance in shops looks minimal compared with the 
benefit  of  making  available  information  that  allows  comparative  differentiation  of  products 
for consumers. 

SECTION 6: COMPARING OPTIONS 

As  mentioned  above,  the  possible  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  ELD  does  not  change  any 
direct  costs  or  benefits  for  economic  operators  (except  administrative  cost  for  the  EU 
Institutions and Member States). They will only occur when implementing measures are set 
on specific products. Accordingly, table 6.1 shows some expected impacts of the considered 
policy options based on the exemplary product groups analysed above.  

Table  6.186:  Comparison  of  expected  annual  indicative  impacts  (savings)  of  policy 
options  against  objectives  and  potential  costs/burden  –  based  on  consideration  on 
selected product groups only  
Policy 
option 

Administrative and transposition cost/burden  
increased/reduced cost 

Environment  

Monetary 

Energy  

Mtoe by 
2020 

Mt of CO2 by 
2020 

 € billion by 
2020 

Administrations  
(MS, EU) 

Manufacturers and 
retailers 

1a 

Baseline 

Baseline 

Baseline 

Baseline 

Baseline 

1b 

22 Mtoes 

65  

€22 billion87 

New or revised Directive = 
€4.7 million per Directive in 

Manufacturers: cost 
for printing and 

86  Note  that  the  table  only  summarises  impacts  from  the  broadening  of  the  scope.  Impacts  and  additional 
potential  savings  from  improved  functioning  of  the  ELD,  including  harmonised  public  procurement  and 
incentives, are summarised below.  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mt of CO2 

total, including €4 of 
transposition cost.   

2 

About as 
baseline 

About as 
baseline 

About as 
baseline 

3 

27 Mtoes 

≈ 78  

Mt of CO2 

€26 billion89 

+ improved 
competitivenes
s and 
innovation. 

4 

27 Motes 

≈ 78  

€26 billion 

Mt of CO2 

+ improved 
competitivenes
s and 
innovation. 

+/- 
(Insufficient basis for 
estimates) 

Amend Directive = €5 
million in total, including €4 
million for transposition. 

If new or reviewed 
Directive = €4.7 million per 
Directive, including €4 
million for transposition. 

If Regulations or Decisions 
the cost is €720.000 (no 
transposition cost, that is, 
savings of €4 million from 
non-transposition cost 

Amend Directive = €5 
million in total, including €4 
million for transposition. 

If new or reviewed 
Directives = €4.7 million 
per Directive, including €4 
million for transposition. 

If Regulations or Decisions 
the cost is €720.000 (no 
transposition cost, that is, 
savings of €4 million from 
non-transposition cost 

including labels in 
product packaging 
and testing products 
(ca €3000/product88). 
Retailers: putting 
labels on products in 
shops. 

Potentially reduced 
burden 

Manufacturers: cost 
for printing and 
including labels in 
product packaging 
and testing products. 
Increased cost for 
testing and labelling 
of newly introduced 
products. 

Retailers: putting 
labels on products in 
shops. 

Manufacturers: cost 
for printing and 
including labels in 
product packaging 
and testing products. 
Retailers: putting 
labels on products in 
shops. 

Figures  in  table  6.1  and  elsewhere  in  this  report,  including  conversion  between  units,  are 
based on the Ecodesign MEEuP methodology and preparatory technical studies90 and on the 
EU Statistical pocketbook on Energy and Transport in Figures 2007/200891, as detailed in the 
above chapters and in relevant Annexes. For the average specific EU emissions, Eurelectric 
environmental  statistics  have  been  used.  Despite  of  the  seemingly  clear  figures  they  hide  a 
complex reality of interlinked impacts. These indicative figures will be further considered in 
product  specific impact assessments.  For the needs of this impact assessment, the relevance 
and underlying assumptions of the figures used have been approved through the Eurostat and 
Ecodesign processes.    

87 Includes savings of about €15 billion from boilers and water heaters as defined in the Ecodesing Lot 1 and 2 
technical studies. Savings in electricity in upgrading the old implementing Directives and developing new ones 
on televisions and lighting are calculate with electricity price of €0,136/kWh. 
88 Shared cost with Ecodesign. 
89 To be noted, for monetary savings of primary energy in commercial heating, the same relation has been used 
as in Lot ½ technical study on household heating and water heating appliances. 
90  The  Ecodesign 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm 
91 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/ 

technical  preparatory  studies  are  based  on  a  common  (MEEuP)  methodology:   

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
A  particular  issue  is  the  definition  of  the  border  line  between  residential  and  commercial 
sector products. It may be easy in the case of e.g. smaller vacuum cleaners or coffee machines 
but be more difficult in the case of vacuum cleaners of bigger size, which could also be used 
e.g. by SMEs in the commercial sector. This is why this impact assessment refrains in general 
from  defining  products  specific  to  these  sectors  but  rather  focuses  on  the  type  and  power 
range of appliances most typical to these sectors. However, in the option 3 and 4, commercial 
heating and water heating appliances and their savings potential have been considered on the 
basis of the Ecodesign preparatory studies on heating and water heating appliances in general 
while  this  report  focuses  on  'commercial'  heating  and  water  heating  only  (options  3  and  4). 
Considering the typical power ranges of these appliances used in each of these sectors92, an 
assumption  of  a  possible  25%  overlap  of  appliances  between  these  sectors  have  been 
assumed. Moreover, the different conversion factors from energy to CO2 take into account the 
difference between oil and gas as defined in the Lot 1 and 2 Ecodesign preparatory studies93. 
The concrete impact of this on the aggregate figures on options 3 and 4 is that the conversion 
factors between units (Mtoes, CO2 and €) do not match one-to-one. 

Table 6.2 below compares the effectiveness, efficiency and consistency of each policy option. 

In  summary,  policy  option  1b  can  reach  important  energy  savings  involving  minor 
administrative  burden  for  manufacturers  and  retailers  and  no  administrative  burden  for 
Member States from the amendment in co-decision of the Framework Directive. However, an 
estimated transposition cost of €4 million for Member States from the transposition of each 
new or updated implementing directive is imposed.  
Stakeholder position varied from neutral to positive. 

Policy option  2 would not reach the objectives and was rejected by stakeholders, including 
industry.  

Policy option 3 can deliver the same energy savings as the option 1b but would also open the 
way to further savings, subject to product specific preparatory studies and impact assessment. 
Using the recasting technique would keep the legislative amendment proportionate and simple 
but would include an administrative burden of €1.2 million from the revision in co-decision of 
the  ELD.  However,  if  implemented  with  Regulations  or  Decisions  instead  of  Directives,  €4 
million of transposition costs would be saved per every new or revised implementing measure 
(compared to option 1b).  

Apart from impacts due to a broadened scope of the ELD, the revision would allow clarifying 
the framework provisions on information provision in distant selling on various media, legal 
protection  of  the  label,  principles  for  measurement  tolerances  and  market  surveillance 
activities.  Also,  the  revision  would  allow  setting  a  harmonised  framework  for  public 
procurement  and  incentive  across  the  Internal  Market  with  important  additional  savings 
potential, e.g. emission savings of 18 Mt of CO2 from water heaters and 8 Mt of CO2 from 
street lighting, corresponding to savings of 1,5 billion vs. €320 million over the life time of 
the product respectively.  

These  changes  in  the  labelling  scheme  would  allow  upgrading  the  ELD  according  to  the 
recent  and  expected  market  development,  including  an  adequate  response  to  the  continuous 
pressure on security of supply and climate change. In this context, energy labelling must be 
seen  as  one  crucial  element  in  the  broader  context  of  market  transformation  within  the 
SCP/SIP.  

92  Oil  and  gas  boilers  above  70  kW  and  water  heaters  of  XXXL  and  XXXXL  -sizes  are  used  mainly  in  non-
residential sectors . 
93 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
Policy option 3 had strong stakeholders support.  

Table 6.2: Effectiveness, efficiency and consistency 

Policy 
option 

1a 

1b 

2 

3 

4 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Consistency 

Policy objectives are not 
achieved  

Some of the resources available for 
energy efficiency could be released; 
little resources are needed 

Most policy objectives 
can be achieved with 
savings of some 65 tons 
of CO2 based on 
considered product 
groups 

Unlikely to achieve the 
policy objectives 

Specific objectives can 
be achieved with savings 
of some 78 tons of CO2 
based on considered 
product groups only. 
Potential to further 
benefits with legal 
protection introduced 
(reliability of scheme and 
use of regulations or 
decisions). 

Specific objectives can 
be achieved only 
(equalling to some 78 
tons of CO2), if 
requirements on retailers 
are included into the 
amended Directive.  

Resources available at present will 
allow achieving the expected 
impacts, except a major 
administrative burden from the 
transposition of the implementing 
Directives and unfavourable impact 
on Internal Market  

Necessary resources needed are 
difficult to estimate due to expected 
scattered implementation of energy 
labelling with no guarantee of 
impacts 

Resources available at present will 
allow achieving the expected 
impacts, no significant resources 
needed by manufacturers or retailers. 
Potential to reduced administrative 
burden for Member States and 
Commission linked with increased 
positive environmental and economic 
impact. 

Resources available at present will 
allow achieving the expected 
impacts, no significant resources 
needed by manufacturers or retailers. 
Potential to reduced administrative 
burden linked with increased positive 
environmental and economic impact, 
if implemented with implementing 
measures. 

Negative balance of indirect 
impacts on environmental terms 
(no savings achieved beyond 
'negajoules') 

Positive balance of environmental 
impacts, potential positive social 
impacts (employment impact) and 
positive balance on economy 
(savings for consumers and 
society, expected increased 
competitiveness and innovation). 

Environmental balance unlikely to 
be positive. Positive balance for 
industry in short-term and negative 
in long-term, negative expected 
economic balance for consumers 
and for Internal Market operators. 

Positive balance of environmental 
impacts, potential positive social 
impacts (employment impact) and 
positive balance on economy 
(savings for consumers and 
society, expected increased 
competitiveness and innovation). 

Negative balance of unintended 
social impacts in form of unclear 
legislation, potential negative 
environmental impact from loss of 
clarity in labelling information. 

Policy option 4, though technically capable of delivering similar savings as policy options 3 
once the new legislation would be in place, would risk leading to confusion with two policy 
measures different in nature within one single piece of legislation; one focusing on minimum 
requirements  on  energy-related  products  throughout  the  life  cycle  of  the  product  with 
requirements  on  manufacturers  only  and  another  one  on  the  labelling  of  energy-related 
products  with  focus  on  use  phase  with  requirements  on  manufacturers  and  retailers.  The 
legislative  effort  to  import  the  energy  efficiency  labelling  provisions  into  the  Ecodesign 
Directive  would  not  be  proportionate  and  would  add  complexity  instead  of  clarity  for  the 
stakeholders affected with risk to generating a label with unclear or confusing information to 
consumer.   

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost-effectiveness  

As already explained before, the extension of the scope of the ELD has little impact beyond 
making  it  possible  to  launch  new  implementing  measures.  The  cost-effectiveness  of 
implementing measures will be addressed in detail in specific product impact assessments for 
which the Ecodesign preparatory technical studies provide input. 

Based on the analysis provided in this impact assessment option 3 is the most cost-effective 
option.  

SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  should  be  looked  in  the  broader  framework  of  the  Sustainable 
Consumption  and  Production  Policy  and  Sustainable  Industrial  Policy  (SCP/SIP)  together 
with  the  Action  Plan  on  Energy  Efficiency  and  relevant  product  policy  instruments.  As  the 
Action  Plan  on  Energy  Efficiency94  states,  monitoring  and  evaluation  capabilities  of  public 
authorities  will  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the  human  and  financial  resources  that  can  be 
attributed to these tasks at EU, national, regional and local level.  

The  Action  Plan  foresees  regular  reporting  to  the  European  Parliament.  Monitoring  on  the 
ELD  (Framework  Directive)  could  provide  information  on  the  various  stages  of  the 
implementation process of the ELD in line with the information provided on the advancement 
of the Ecodesign Directive, such as the number of preparatory studies launched and finished 
and implementing measures adopted. As foreseen also for Ecodesign, collaboration with the 
working group of Eurostat on Sustainable Development indicators is envisaged to assess the 
possibility to include statistics on products for which implementing measures are developed 
(e.g. reporting market share of products per labelling category).  

The main indicator to monitor progress towards the specific objectives and to verify whether 
the  implementation  of  the  policy  provides  the  expected  results  and  contributes  to  the 
objectives  of  the  Climate  Package,  the  renewed  Lisbon  agenda  and  more  generally  to  the 
renewed  Sustainable  Development  Strategy,  is  the  energy  savings  achieved  with  product 
groups  labelled  and  the  evolution  of  the  level  of  efficiency  of  appliances  for  which 
implementing measures are in force by 2020.  

In  the  short  term,  evaluation  should  be  implemented  at  the  level  of  the  existing  Framework 
Directive and its implementing Directives. On the medium term, the revised Directive and its 
implementing  measures  should  be  evaluated  in  order  to  more  clearly  measure  and  compare 
the impact of the amendment with the past achievements and the set objectives.  

Due to the general nature of Framework Directives, the specific objectives (energy saved as 
defined in Section 3) will be achieved by means of the operational objectives that are defined 
in each implementing measure, including the levels for efficiency classes to be applied. These 
indicators are the changes in market share towards higher efficiency appliances/classes over 
time and the amount of energy saved. 

The above indicators should be considered as subject to fine-tuning, including possible shift 
in  timelines  according  to  the  development  of  the  implementation  process,  in  collaboration 
with the Member States through the Energy Labelling Committee and affected stakeholders.  

94 COM(2006)545 final: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
It is important to evaluate the impact of the implementing measures also on the long term in 
coordination  with  the  Eco-desing  and  other  product  policy  instruments.  Particular  attention 
must be paid on the impact of each individual instrument. 
Many  past  evaluations  of  labelling  programs  have  focused  on  consumer  awareness  of  the 
label but have not explicitly linked the label to actual behaviour (i.e., to the efficiency of the 
appliances  purchased  and  to  the  most  likely  purchase  if  there  had  been  no  label).  Future 
evaluations  should  be  more  comprehensive  than  has  been  the  case  so  far  and  include  the 
analysis  and  assessment  of  all  instruments  foreseen  for  market-transformation  under  the 
SCP/SIP. 

44 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PRODUCT GROUPS COVERED BY THE ELD AND THE IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVES 

The  table  below  shows  the  coverage  of  household  products  by  the  ELD  (Article  1)  and 
products covered by the existing implementing Directives. Other household products, such as 
televisions or comfort fans, could be covered under Article 1.2 of 92/75/EC. Products beyond 
the  household  sector,  such  as  commercial  air-conditioning  and  refrigeration,  industrial 
cooking appliances, industrial motors, machine tools, and energy-related products that do not 
consume  energy  in  use  (e.g.  windows)  could  be  covered  only  if  the  ELD  was  amended  or 
implemented within an amended Ecodesign Directive. 

Table on actual vs. possible coverage of products by energy labelling 

Information that 
could be provided 
on the label 

Annual 
consumption or 
any other 
significant 
environmental 
impact or product 
performance 
characteristics  
relevant to use 
phase for 
consumers 

Idem. 

Household 
appliances 
covered by Article 
1 of 92/75/EC 

Covered by 
implementing 
Directives 

Information provided on the label 

Refrigerators, 
freezers and their 
combinations 

2003/66/EC 
(94/2/EC) 

Energy efficiency class, energy 
consumption, fresh food volume, frozen 
food volume, noise 

Washing 
machines, driers 
and their 
combinations 

96/89/EC 
(95/12/EC) 

95/13/EC  

96/60/EC 

Washing machine: Energy efficiency class, 
energy consumption, washing performance 
class, spin drying efficiency class, maximum 
spin speed, capacity, water consumption, 
estimated annual consumption, noise. 
Tumble drier: energy efficiency class, 
energy consumption, capacity, water 
consumption, estimated annual 
consumption, noise. Washer-dryer: as 
above.   

Dishwashers 

1999/9/EC 
(97/75/EC) 

Energy efficiency class, energy 
consumption, cleaning performance, drying 
performance, water consumption, noise 

Ovens 

2002/40/EC  

Water heaters and 
hot-water storage 
appliances 

Lighting sources 

98/11/EC 

Air-conditioning 
appliances 

2002/31/EC 

Idem. 

Idem. 

Energy efficiency class, energy 
consumption (conventional and forced air 
convection), usable volume, size (S,M,L), 
noise 

No implementing measure was developed. 

Energy efficiency class, luminous flux, input 
power, average rated life of the lamp 
(hours). 

Energy efficiency class, annual energy 
consumption, cooling output, energy 
efficiency ration, type, heat output, heating 
performance, noise. 

Idem. 

Idem. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: EU POLICY INSTRUMENTS ADDRESSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCTS 
This  Annex  illustrates  the  dynamic  process  created  by  various  policy  instruments  with 
synergy,  complementarity  and  overlaps  of  the  various  policy  instruments  addressing  energy 
labelling. 

Graph 1: Interaction between Ecodesign, ELD and Ecolabel 

Policy instruments addressing
product energy efficiency

Example of a coordinated and dynamic implementation of the instruments

Product range

Ecodesign

Phase 1

Phase 2

Best

Benchmark

Benchmark

Energy labelling
(mandatory)

Ecolabel
(voluntary)

GRANTED ON
REQUEST

Tier 2

FORBIDDEN

Tier 1

FORBIDDEN

Worst

Phase 2 is followed by a complete revision of limit values for all instruments.

Graph 2: Interaction between EU policy instruments addressing energy efficiency of 
products  

Policy instruments addressing
product energy efficiency

With the exception of Energy Star, all instruments presented here allow addressing other
environmental aspects than energy use

Voluntary producer
labelling of best products

Mandatory
performance
labelling

by retailers

by producers

Benchmarks
for best products

Minimum requirements
for placing on the market

* of boilers, ballasts for 
fluorescent lighting and 
refrigerators, now implementing
measures of the EuP Directive

Energy Star

EU Ecolabel

Energy
Labelling

Ecodesign of
Energy-Using Products

Former directives on minimum
energy performance *

office

household

other
(eg industrial)

Energy-Using Products

Non-energy using
products

46 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: PRODUCT LABELS IN THE EU  

This  Annex  aims  at  giving  an  overview  of  the  product  labelling  and,  in  particular,  of  the 
energy labelling in the EU. There are three Community product labels applied in the Internal 
Market.  The  'Energy  Star'  label  is  an  endorsement  label  used  to  show  the  most  energy 
efficient office equipment (PCs, printers, faxes, copying machines, monitors etc.).  

 The  Energy  Star  label  is  voluntary  and  may  be  affixed  by 
manufacturers  only  on  those  products  that  meet  the  qualifying 
criteria (usually around 25% best range). 

 The  Energy  Star  is  a  labelling  programme  owned  by  the  US 
Government but the Community signed an international agreement 
with  the  USA  in  2000  to  coordinate  energy  labelling  for  office 
equipment  using  the  Energy  Star  scheme  and  logo.  The  Energy 

Star Programme was considered to be more appropriate to follow 
fast evolving technologies used for office equipment and to cover 
equipment traded worldwide.  

The  Agreement  was  renewed  in  December  2006  for  five  years 
and  currently  provides  for  voluntary  labelling  of  24  office 
products.   

The “Ecolabel” is a voluntary label. It acts as a label of excellence providing the benchmarks 
for  top  performance  for  all  environmental  aspects  during  the  complete  product’s  lifecycle. 
The  Commission  recently  reviewed  the  Ecolabel  Regulation,  which  currently  provides  for 
voluntary labelling of 24 product groups.  

The  main  tool  for  energy  labelling  at  EU  level  is  the  “energy  label”  under  the  ELD,  which 
focuses on the energy efficiency of household appliances (on coverage of product groups, see 
Annex 1).  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
           
 
  
  
                    
 
This is achieved with the help of a transparent and easy-to-understand energy label, which is 
fixed  at  the  point  of  sales  on  household  appliances  covered  by  specific  implementing 
Directives. The label provides consumers comparative information about the estimated energy 
consumption between similar appliances enabling them to make a more informed purchasing 
choice in by alerting them on the cost of running the appliance.  

In 1979, the Council passed a Directive95 intended to introduce a Community-wide voluntary 
scheme  for  energy  labelling  of  domestic  appliances.  The  Directive  allowed,  but  did  not 
oblige, the Member States to introduce energy labels. However, due to a disagreement over 
technical  measurement  standards  and  their  tolerances,  none  of  the  Commissions  proposals 
was  accepted  by  the  Council.  In  a  climate  of  general  disinterest  to  make  the  voluntary 
European  scheme  work,  several  Member  States  and  industry  groupings  started  developing 
their  own  voluntary  schemes.  As  the  voluntary  schemes  proved  to  be  failures,  Denmark96 
notified  a  national  obligatory  scheme  in  1983.  With  a  view  to  avoid  several  voluntary 
schemes  based  on  different  technical  basis  on  a  variety  of  products,  and  considering  the 
Danish notification the Commission made a proposal for a harmonised scheme at European 
level in order to avoid hindering the functioning of the Internal Market. The ELD was adopted 
in  1992  introducing  a  framework  that  allows  the  Commission,  assisted  by  a  regulatory 
committee, to adopt implementing Directives for specific household appliances.  

The energy label is compulsory and obliges manufacturers to declare the energy consumption 
(and  possible  additional  relevant  information  on  the  performance  in  use,  such  as  noise  or 
water consumption) irrespective if the product is doing best (“A” class) or poorly (“G” class). 
The setting of criteria/classes under the ELD is based on the Article 95 legal basis ensuring a 
level  playing  field  for  industry  and  consumers,  including  for  a  harmonised  measurement 
method (standard) to be applied for the determination of the product performance. Under the 
ELD,  there  are  eight  Implementing  Directives97,  three98  of  which  have  been  updated  due  to 
technological developments. 

Beyond the primary objective of the energy labelling to save energy, the label also provides 
consumers  with  comparative  information  on  the  use  of  other  resources  such  as  water  (e.g. 
dishwashers  and  washing  machines)  or  emitted  levels  of  noise  in  use.  The  Ecodesign 
preparatory studies99 have shown that typically more than 90% of the life-cycle environmental 
impacts  of  energy-using  products  take  place  during  the  use  phase.  As  such,  although  the 
energy  label  focuses  on  consumption  of  resources  in  the  use  phase,  it  usually  addresses  in 
practice  the  most  significant  environmental  impacts  over  the  life  cycle  of  the  energy-using 
product.  

Currently,  given  that  oldest  existing  implementing  Directives  have  already  had  their  impact 
(most  sold  appliances  correspond  now  to  the  levels  A  or  B)  there  is  no  incentive  for  the 
industry  to  further  develop  more  efficient  appliances.  Furthermore,  even  if  such  appliances 
would  exist,  there  is  no  mechanism  for  the  industry  to  market  the  more  efficient  products 
based  on  a  reliable  (harmonized)  European-wide  scheme  such  as  the  energy  labelling.  For 

95 OJC, 145/1 of 13.06.179. 
96 Danish notification to the Commission OJL 109/8 of 26.04.1983. 
97 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation  
98 94/2/EC on household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, 95/12/EC on washing machines 
and 97/17/EC on dishwashers.  
99 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
these  appliances,  there  is  a  need  to  upgrade  the  criteria  for  the  energy  label.  This  is  being 
prepared under the current ELD.  

The success of the ELD labelling scheme is partly due to it being used by the Member States 
for  setting  levels  for  incentives  (rebate  schemes  for  the  best  classes)  but  no  quantitative 
information  is  available  to  estimate  the  actual  effect  of  this.  Minimum  efficiency  levels  for 
national public purchases also push manufacturers to design appliances above the minimum 
level. The downside is that there are many different procurement/incentive levels across the 
27 Member States, and sometimes none at all.   

49 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: COMPOSITION OF ENERGY LABEL: LABEL AND STRIP 

The energy label is composed of a coloured background label fixed on products displayed in 
shops and of a black-and-white strip provided with each product. The information to be given 
on  the  label  and  strip  is  regulated  in  implementing  Directives.  For  printed  packaging  the 
energy label is black-and-white. 

Label:  

Strip: 

 Energy label for printed packaging (e.g. on lamps): 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                         
            
 
 
ANNEX 5: CONTENT OF AN INFORMATION FICHE 
This Annex shows an example of requirements set on the content of the information fiche on 
dishwashers under the implementing Directive 97/17/EC. 

"The fiche shall contain the following information.  

The information may be given in the form of a table covering a number of models supplied by 
the  same  supplier.  The  information  shall  be  given  in  the  order  specified  below  unless  it  is 
contained in a more general description of the appliance: 

1. Supplier's trade mark. 

2. Supplier's model identifier. 

3.  The  energy  efficiency  class  of  the  model  determined  in  accordance  with  Annex  IV. 
Expressed as ‘Energy efficiency class … on a scale of A (more efficient) to G (less efficient)’. 
Where this information is provided in a table this may be expressed by other means provides 
it is clear that the scale is from A (more efficient) to G (less efficient). 

4. Where the information is provides in a table, and where some of the appliances listed in the 
table have been granted a ‘Community Eco-label’ pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, 
this information may be included here. In this case the row heading shall state ‘Community 
Eco-label’,  and  the  entry  shall  consist  of  a  copy  of  the  Eco-label  mark.  This  provisions  is 
without prejudice to any requirements under the EU Eco-label scheme. 

5. Manufacturer's name, code or indication for the ‘standard’ cycle to which the information 
in the label and the fiche relate. 

6. Energy consumption in kWh per cycle using standard, cycle determined in accordance with 
the test procedures of the harmonized standards referred to 
in  Article  1  (2),  and  described  as  ‘Energy  consumption  XYZ  kWh  per  standard  test  cycle, 
using cold water fill. Actual energy consumption will depend on how the appliance is used’. 

7.  Cleaning  performance  class,  determined  in  accordance  with  Annex  IV.  Expressed  as 
‘Cleaning performance class … on a scale of A (higher) to G (lower)’. This may be expressed 
by other means provided it is clear that the scale is from A (higher) to G (lower). 

8. Drying performance class, determined in accordance with Annex IV. Expressed as: ‘Drying 
performance … on a scale of A (higher) to G (lower)’. This may be expressed by other means 
provided it is clear that the scale is from A (higher) to G (lower). 

9. Capacity of appliance in standard place settings, as defined in Annex I, note VIII. 

10.  Water  consumption  per  cycle  in  litres  using  standard cycle, as defined in Annex I, note 
IX. 

11. Programme time for standard cycle, determined in accordance with the test procedures of 
the harmonized standards referred to in Article 1 (2). 

12. Suppliers may include the information in points 5 to 11 in respect of other cycles. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13.  The  estimated  annual  consumption  of  energy  and  water  equal  to  220  times  the 
consumptions expressed in points 6 (energy) and 10 (water). This shall 
be expressed as ‘estimated annual consumption (220 cycles)’. 

14.  Where  applicable,  noise  during  standard  cycle,  in  accordance  with  Council  Directive 
(EEC) No 86/594. 

The  information  on  the  label  may  be  given  in  the  form  of  a  representation  of  the  label  in 
colour or in black and white." 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANNEX 6: PROVISION OF PRODUCT INFORMATION IN THE ENERGY LABEL 

The  Annex  6  illustrates  how  product  information  is  displayed  on  the  energy  label  with  an 
example  of  a  possible  label  on  cooker  hoods.  Information  provided  on  the  label  focuses  on 
product  performances  directly  of  interest  to  consumers  allowing  comparison  between 
products  displayed  in  shops  or  in  adverts.  Product  information  in  the  existing  eight 
implementing Directives (see Annex1) follows this structure. 

 Example of a possible energy label on cooker hoods with use phase related information. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: ENERGY LABELS ADOPTED IN THIRD COUNTRIES 
This Annex provides a sample of energy labels adopted in third countries based on the EU 
energy label as a model. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: ENERGY LABELS ADOPTED IN OTHER SECTORS  
The Annex 8 illustrates how the EU energy label on household products has been applied in 
the building sector. There are similar applications of the energy label in other sectors at the 
EU and Member State/third country level too (EU car label, window label in UK and 
Finland…).  

55 

 
 
 
 
56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9: ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE EU AND SAVINGS POTENTIAL OF APPLIANCES   

This  Annex  provides  an  overview  of  the  energy  consumption  in  the  EU  in  general  and  of 
energy consumption of appliances in particular, including their savings potential. 

Energy consumption in the EU is estimated to increase by 9% from 2005 to 2020 with current 
policies  in  place100.  The  household,  commercial  and  industrial  sectors  (excluding  transport) 
represent some 70% of the total energy consumption in the EU, with energy savings potential 
of  close  to  30%.  The  current  Energy  Labelling  Directive  only  allows  addressing  the  energy 
efficiency  potential  of  the  household  sector,  which  represents  25%  of  the  total  energy 
consumption  in  the  EU.  A  revised/extended  energy  labelling  could  capture  part  of  the 
potential from the commercial and industrial sectors and contribute to the EU energy savings 
objective as set in the Action Plans on Energy Efficiency and SCP/SIP.  

The Action Plan for Energy Efficiency identified a high potential for energy savings by 2020 
in  the  household,  commercial  and  industry  sectors  (27%,  30%  vs.  25%).  In  2006,  annual 
consumption  of  electricity  by  the  household  sector  in  the  EU-25  was  estimated  to  be  in  the 
region of 800 TWh and growing at just under 2.3 % a year101.   

In addition to the electricity consumed in operating household appliances such as white goods 
(fridge,  washing  machine,  oven  etc),  lighting  or  consumer  electronics  (TV,  Hifi,  gaming 
consoles etc), account also needs to be taken of boilers and water heaters.  Some 270 million 
tonnes  of  oil-equivalent  are  used  for  space  heating  in  the  EU-27  of  which  over  75 %  was 
consumed in the household sector. Overall the household sector in the EU-27 consumes 338 
Mtoe. 

Apart from boilers and water heaters, the consumption attributable to the main categories of 
household appliances covered by the current scope of the ELD is shown in table 2.1.   

Table 1: Stock and energy consumption of household appliances – EU-25, 2004 

• 
appliance 

Type 

of 

•  Refrigerators 

•  Freezers 

•  Washing machines 

•  Dishwashers 

•  Electric ovens 

•  Lighting 

•  TVs 

•  Other 
*** 

household 

• 
Stock 
(No of units, 
million) 

• 

Average 

• 

Total 

• 

Annual 

unit energy 
consumption 
(kWh/year) 

energy 
consumption 
(TWh/year) 

Sales 
(No of units, 
millions) 

•  199 

•  93 

•  169 

•  71 

• 

• 

• 

• 

- 

- 

- 

- 

•  305 

•  383 

•  217 

•  286 

• 

- 

•  509 

•  177 

• 

- 

•  61 

•  35 

•  36 

•  20 

•  15 

•  92 

•  48 

•  457 

•  14 * 

•  4.2 * 

•  13.8 * 

•  5.8 * 

• 

• 

- 

- 

•  30. 6** 

• 

- 

100 COM (2008) final annex. 
101 Europe's environment - The fourth assessment, European Environment Agency, State of the environment 
report No 1/2007. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

Total 

• 

- 

• 

- 

• 

767 

• 

- 

 *The figures are the sum of sales in 2004 for West European countries and CZ, HU, PL and SK. 

 **Figures are for EU25+, 2003 

– 

Source: Odysee, NMC, Ecodesign studies 

***consumer electronics (except TVs), air conditioning, electric heating and water heating, ICT… 

Detailed data is available only for a subset of appliances that account for roughly 300 TWh of 
electricity  consumption102.  Lighting,  for  which  labelling  has  had  a  relatively  low  impact  till 
now, is a major area of consumption, almost double the level for televisions which are not yet 
subject  to  mandatory  labelling.  Electric  heating,  air  conditioning  equipment  and  consumer 
electronics/ICT account for the bulk of electricity consumption not listed in this table. 

The breakdown of electricity consumption by all categories of end use equipment is shown in 
figure 2.1 for EU-15 and in  
Figure  2  on  the  new  Member  States  in  2004.  Heating  equipment  and  consumer  electronics 
represent the main equipment not currently subject to mandatory labelling for the household 
sector. 

Figure : Breakdown of 704 TWh of electricity consumption among residential end-use 
equipment – EU-15, 2004 

Misc., 12%

Central Heating 
Circulation Pumps, 
4%

Residential Electric 
Heating, 22%

Office Equipment, 
1%

Tv on Mode, 3%

Lighting, 12%

– 

Refrigerator/Freezer
s, 15%

Washing Machine, 
4%

Dishwasher, 2%

Drier, 2%

Room air-
conditioning, 1%

Electric Storage 
Water Heater, 9%

Electric Ovens, 2%

Electric Hobs, 5%

Consumer 
electronics and 
other equipment 
stand-by, 6%

– 
Union" 

Source: European Commission Status Report 2006, "Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European 

102  No  detailed  data  is  available  on  electric  heating,  office  equipment,  driers,  air  conditioning,  water  heaters, 
electric hobs, etc.  However, figures 2.1 and 2.2 report a breakdown of consumption for more categories.   

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Breakdown of 63 TWh of electricity consumption among residential end-use 
equipment – New Member States, 2004 

Misc., 7%

Heating/Cooling, 10%

Consumer Electronics 
and stand-by, 13%

Electric Storage Water 
Heater, 7%

Cooking/Dishw asher, 
10%

Lighting, 20%

Washing Machines, 
11%

Refrigerators/Freezer
s, 22%

Source: European Commission Status Report 2006, "Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged 
European Union" 

The ELD only covers household appliances. However, the savings potential of other energy-
using and energy-related appliances is significant, which to some extent could be addressed 
with  energy  labelling.  Depending  on  the  type  of  product  and  market,  the  provisions  of  the 
ELD  can  be  used  either  for  the  setting  of  the  label  together  with  product  information  on 
products  displayed  in  shops/outlets  or  for  the  setting  of  levels  for  efficiency  classes  only 
without the label for products sold in the OEM market. For example, the figure 3 shows the 
efficiency levels corresponding to the efficiency classes on the energy label of refrigerators. 
Energy efficiency levels are calculated for each appliance according to its consumption and its 
compartments' volume taking into account the appliance type. The level is thus not calculated 
in  kWh  but  provides  efficiency  levels  on  a  comparative  basis.  The  value  of  the  efficiency 
level  speaks  more  for  experts  and  informed  purchases  while  the  comparative  energy 
efficiency class is more easily understood by non-professional customers. 

Figure 3: Energy efficiency index and efficiency levels on refrigerators  

A++  A+  A  B  C  D 

E 

F 

G 

<30  <42  <55  <75  <90  <100  <110 <125 >125

At  best,  the  provision  of  energy  efficiency  information  is  combined  with  information 
provision  requirements  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive,  which  allows  addressing  both  non-
professional and professional OEM purchasers, who might be more conscious of the cost of 
running and maintaining equipment. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The  background  study  and  the  Ecodesign  preparatory  studies  have  identified  savings 
potentials of selected products as follow103: 

• 

Industrial motors: 9.85 TWh/a would be saved, if today's motors were replaced by IE2 
level motors and an additional 5.55 TWh/a would be saved with IE3 level motors. In 
the service sector, the respective amount would be 7.85 and 3.65 TWh/a; 

•  Commercial refrigerators and freezers, including chillers, display cabinets and vending 
machines: total estimated 21 TWh savings potential by 2020. As most of this will be 
achieved  by  Ecodesign  some  quarter  of  the  savings  could  be  achieved  by  energy 
labelling;  

•  Windows:  €  4  billion/a  savings  (25  million  tonnes  CO2)  would  be  reached  if  the 
conventional double glazing was replaced by low-e windows. Although a significant 
proportion of those savings would also be in the household sector, windows cannot be 
covered under the current ELD as they do not consume energy in the use phase. 

As a main commercial product, refrigerators and freezers, including chillers, display cabinets 
and vending machines, would offer an estimated 21 TWh savings potential by 2020104. These 
appliances are among the best candidates for energy labelling in the commercial sector. It can 
be  estimated  that  energy  labelling  could  reach  some  quarter  of  this  potential  analogously  to 
the  household  cold  appliances,  corresponding  to  4-6  TWh  of  savings  by  2020.  The  lower 
relative  energy  savings  reached  by  energy  labelling  from  these  appliances  compared  to 
household appliances in general is due to the type of markets in which the 'user' is not always 
responsible for the purchase decision. Also, there is an 'overlap' of household and commercial 
appliances  meaning  that  the  present  implementing  Directives  already  include  some  25%  of 
the refrigerator and freezer sizes used in commercial sector, e.g. in SMEs. 

As  a  main  industrial  product,  motors  have  been  proposed  by  stakeholders  to  be  addressed 
with  energy  labelling,  which  at  the  first  glance  could  make  sense.  However,  the  Lot  10 
Ecodesign  preparatory  study105  advises  to  label  motors  under  the  new  ISO  60034-30  motor 
efficiency  standard  rather  than  under  the  ELD.  The  ISO  standard  includes  an  efficiency 
classification  and  thus  provides  a  globally  accepted  basis  for  motor  efficiency  labelling.  A 
simple indication of the efficiency level on the motor name plate and in the documentation is 
a  more  cost-efficient  way  of  handling  the  labelling  of  a  product  mainly  traded  in  the  OEM 
market (industry to industry business). This could be achieved under the Ecodesign Directive 
(where retailers are not to be addressed). The same applies to fans and pumps which do not 
necessarily  require  labelling  under  ELD.  However,  labelling  under  the  ELD  would  most 
probably  make  sense  in  the  smaller  power  ranges  of  these  products,  as  they  are  more 
frequently put on the market through outlets/shops.   

However,  it  can  be  difficult  to  define  the  boundaries  between  'residential/household', 
'commercial'  or  'industrial'  product.  The  same  lighting,  refrigeration  or  air-conditioning 
household appliance could be used also in the smallest SMEs in the commercial sector. The 
approach  to  partially  solve  this  problem  in  most  reports  is  to  consider  appliances  that  are 
intended  for  households  as  household  appliances,  regardless  in  which  sector  they  are  used. 
The same applies to the border line between commercial and industrial products (e.g. motors, 
pumps, ventilation and air-conditioning products).  

103 Background study on industrial motors and windows and Ecodesign preparatory study lot 12 on commercial 
refrigeration:  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm#studies 
104 Ecodesign studies: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm#studies  
105 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm  

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 ANNEX 10: ACHIEVEMENTS OF ENERGY LABELLING AND PROBLEMS THEREOF 

This Annex provides a more detailed description of the achievements of the energy labelling 
than  the  body  text,  including  complementary  information  on  problems  related  to  energy 
labelling. 

In  the  absence  of  systematic  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  ELD  over  the  past  years,  a 
specific  background  study106  was  launched  by  the  Commission.  The  background  study, 
together with a number of other reports on the performance of the energy labelling, provide a 
clear broad picture on main issues at stake, although many of the details are beyond the reach 
of this report.  

There  have  been  a  number  of  studies  on  the  impact  of  the  ELD107,  including  the  external 
background  study  to  this  report.    The  studies  demonstrate  an  increased  take  up  of  higher 
efficient  appliances  over  the  past  decade.  The  impact  has  been  greatest  for  white  goods, 
particularly  refrigerators,  freezers  and  washing  machines.  The  take  up  of  higher  energy 
efficient appliances has been greater in the EU-15, where the directives have been in place for 
a  longer  time,  than  in  the  new  Member  States.  However,  the  New  Member  States  are 
currently  making  a  leap  directly  to  A-class  appliances  thanks  to  the  label  that  has  made 
manufacturers  less  interested  in  producing  lower-efficiency  appliances.  The  success  of  the 
labelling scheme is also demonstrated in the high number of third countries that have adopted 
a  similar  label  or  sometimes  an  exact  copy  of  the  EU  energy  label108  as  show  in  Annex  7. 
Also,  the  energy  label  has  been  recently  copied  by  other  sectors  within  the  EU  and  third 
countries (see Annex 8). 

It is estimated that with all current policies already in place, a total of 65 TWh to 75 TWh per 
year  would  be  saved  by  2010109.  While  it  is  difficult  to  separate  out  the  impact  of  labelling 
from  other  factors  such  as  minimum  efficiency  standards  or  "business  as  usual"  technical 
development, it has been estimated that energy labelling schemes could account for about half 
of the increased take up of higher energy efficient appliances, contributing in total to some 35 
TWh of savings per year (2010)  110 and corresponding to some 3 Mtoe111 of primary energy. 
The  rest  of  the  savings  is  composed  mainly  of  technological  development  and  minimum 
energy performance requirements set under Directive 2005/32/EC  (Ecodesign Directive)  for 

106 Study on a possible extension, tightening or simplification of framework directive 92/75/EEC on energy 
labelling of household appliances, Report by Europe Economics and Fraunhofer-ISI with BSR Sustainability and 
FfE, 19 October 2007.  
107 E.g. OECD/IEA, Energy labels and standards, 2000; GSK and Fraunhofer ISI, 2001, Evaluating the 
Implementation of the Energy Consumption Labelling Ordinance; IEA, 2003, Cool appliances: policy strategies 
for energy efficient homes; Atkins ad ATN, 2006, Impact Assessment of the Future Action Plan for Energy 
Efficiency; European Commission Joint Research Center, 2006, Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends 
in the Enlarged European Union; Benoit Lebot (UNDP-GEF) and Paul Waide (IAE), The European Energy 
Label: An energy efficiency success story with an impact beyond EU borders; ANEC-R&T, 2007, A review of 
the range of activity throughout Member States related to compliance with the EU Energy Label regulations in 
those countries 
108 Benoit Lebot and Paul Waide, The European label: an energy efficiency success story with an impact beyond 
EU borders. 
109 Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European Union – Status Report 2006. P 
Bertoldi, B Atanasiu. 2007 
110 Background study: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation 
111 Estimated electricity savings by the ELD are about 35 TWh by 2010. For convenience, savings in electricity 
(TWh) are converted to savings in primary energy (Mtoes). A conversion factor of 0,086 is used based on the EU 
Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical pocketbook, 2007/2008.  

61 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
fridges,  freezers,  ballasts  for  fluorescent  lighting  and  hot-water  boilers.  For  example,  as  to 
cold appliances, it has been estimated that between 1996 and 2004, the average efficiency of 
newly  purchased  cold  appliances  improved  by  30  per  cent,  dishwashers  by  35  per  cent  and 
washing machines by 23 per cent. The above estimate on the savings due to energy labelling 
is  supported  by  a  report  from  CECED  estimating  that  annual  electricity  consumption  by 
appliances installed in European households fell by 34 TWh per year on 1995 to 2005112.  

The scale of the current take up of higher efficiency appliances can be seen in Table 1 and 
Figure 1 for the EU15. 

Table 1: Energy rating of household appliance - percentage of sales – EU 15, 2004-05 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

% A or 

above 

• 

% B 

• 

% C or 

below 

Refrigerators 

Freezers 

Washing machines 

Dishwashers 

Electric ovens 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

61 

47 

79 

81 

47 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

30 

26 

11 

11 

37 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

9 

27 

10 

8 

16 

Lighting (households)  • 

54% households with some CFLs    

– 

Source: EC Status Report 2006 

As one sees for all household appliances (excluding lighting), the majority of products are 
either rate B or above.  (We discuss the new Member States below).    

Figure 1: Energy rating of household appliance - percentage of sales – EU 15, 2004-05 

%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Refrigerators

Freezers

Washing
machines

Dishwashers

Electric ovens

– 

Source: EC Status Report 2006 

% A or above % B    % C or below

112 Energy Efficiency, A shortcut to Kyoto Targets.  The Vision of European Home Appliance Manufacturers.  
Ceced 2006.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
As has been emphasised in an IEA report113, the introduction of the labelling programme has 
shown a marked progression towards the more efficient categories (A appliances). The figure 
below illustrates this, with fewer and fewer products being sold in the less efficient classes of 
D or below.  

Figure 2: Share of EU cold appliance market by labelling class from 1990-92 to 1999 

• 

– 

Source: Waide 2001 

As  an  example  we  can  look  at  refrigerators.  Recent  market  data  on  the  share  of  energy 
efficient appliances suggests that the EU market for refrigerators is moving towards a higher 
share of most efficient classes of appliances (i.e. the impact of labels on refrigerators seems to 
have been quite important). 

Figure 3: Labels impact on EU refrigerator market 

%

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

EU Market 2003

EU Market 1999

EU Market 1996

EU Market 1992

– 

Source: Waide 2004 

113 IEA, 2003, Cool appliances: policy strategies for energy efficient homes. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Encouragingly, within the new Member States the number of A rated appliances sold is also 
high, as can be seen in the case of washing machines.  

Figure 4: Breakdown of 13.8 millions of sales per washing machines classes in EU, 2004 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

West

Center-East

A+

A B C Others

Note: 8 Countries East: PL, CZ, SK, BG, SI, RO, HU, and HR; 

10 Country West: AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, NL, PT, SE 

Source: Overview of sales and trends for main appliances, GfK 2004 

The benefit of more efficient products being sold also has an impact on the stock of products.  
As older products are replaced, the flow of new, more efficient, products adds to the existing 
stock of products.  This means over time the entire stock of products becomes more efficient 
and so energy savings accumulate. 

It  has  been  estimated  that  between  1996  and  2004/05,  the  average  efficiency  of  newly 
purchased cold appliances improved by 30 per cent, dishwashers by 35 per cent and washing 
machines  by  23  per  cent.  It  is  estimated  that  with  the  current  policies  already  in  place,  65 
TWh to 75TWh per year could be saved by 2010114. It is assumed that more than half, some 
35  TWh  (3  Mtoe),  is  due  to  labelling,  the  remaining  part  is  due  to  structural  technical 
improvements.115  Industry  comes  to  conclusions  of  the  same  order  of  magnitude  estimating 
that annual electricity consumption by appliances installed in European households fell by 34 
TWh between 1995 and 2005, a fall of 12 per cent.116 

These results are similar to those in third countries, e.g. in Australia and Switzerland when the 
provision of information on appliance running costs has been increased. From the Australian 
NAEEP programme there is evidence to demonstrate decreases in energy consumption of 1 to 
6%  and  increases  in  energy  efficiency  of  1.4  -  3.6%  across  the  use  of  5  main  appliances 
during the period 1993-2001. It has been estimated if labelling had not been introduced, the 
annual  electricity  consumption  of  all  new  appliances  (of  the  types  labelled)  in  1992  would 
have been about 11% higher than it was, and the total household electricity consumption in 
Australia would have been about 1.6% higher. Projections from the Swiss E2000 energy label 
(which were granted only to appliances which met targets of power consumption in different 

Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European Union – Status Report 2006. 

114  
P Bertoldi, B Atanasiu, 2007.  
115 Impact Assessment Report for the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 2006: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm  
116  
Manufacturers,  Ceced 2006.  

Energy  Efficiency,  A  shortcut  to  Kyoto  Targets.    The  Vision  of  European  Home  Appliance 

64 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
modes of operation, linked to running costs) also estimated savings of approximately 1% of 
Switzerland’s overall electricity consumption.117   

Using  only  energy  savings  as  a  benefit  (that  is  allocating  no  monetary  value  to  the 
environmental  benefits),  the  NAEEEP  is  projected  to  deliver  almost  4.2  billion  Australian 
dollars  to  the  community  (after  the  projected  $2.6  billion  costs  are  deducted  from  the  $6.8 
billion  energy  savings  at  10  %  discount  rate  by  2018).  This  experience  suggests  that  such 
schemes to increase awareness of running costs/energy efficiency are cost effective. Savings 
can be achieved at a negative cost to society. The extra costs of more efficient appliances are 
offset  by  savings  in  running  costs  over  the  life  of  the  appliance.  No  effect  expected  on 
availability or cost of inputs, access to finance or investment cycle. Action will promote the 
most efficient technologies available over inefficient technologies. 

Table 2: Overall effectiveness of labelling 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Compliance

• 

Importance 

• 

Influence 

of energy 
efficiency 

of label on 
purchase 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Sweden 

Finland 

Portugal 

UK 

France 

Ireland 

Spain 

Greece 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

** 

* 

*** 

** 

** 

* 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

56 

45 

39 

39 

41 

35 

24 

32 

15 

19 

4 

Note: ***>70%; **50-70%; *<50% 

– 

Source: Shiellerup, Winward, Boardman, Cool Labels 1998 

The background study also note that the European energy label design has been successfully 
copied in a number of other jurisdictions for a number of products (for illustration, see Annex 
7). Nonetheless, one must be careful not to attribute the increase in sales of energy efficient 
products  wholly  to  energy  labelling.  Given  the  range  of  policy  instruments  directed  at 
encouraging  the  take  up  of  energy  efficient  products  and  the  financial  benefit  to  consumers 
from  reduced  energy  costs,  it  is  difficult  to  attribute  a  specific  degree  of  influence  to  the 
introduction  of  the  mandatory  labelling  schemes.  One  study118  suggested  that  the  impact  of 
labelling was closely linked both to the level of compliance and to general awareness of the 
importance of energy efficiency.  It was told that in favourable circumstances the existence of 
the label could account for over half of the take up of the higher efficiency appliances. 

These studies also identified problems with labelling.  In the early years, compliance in terms 
of failure to display labels or incorrect labelling, was an issue.  The situation has improved but 

117 Impact Assessment Report for the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 2006: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm  
118 Shiellerup, Winward, Boardman, Cool Labels 1998 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
   
                                                 
 
compliance remains a concern.  The design of the label has generally been commended for its 
effectiveness  in  signalling  relative  efficiency  of  products  but  there  has  been  concern  that 
consumers can be confused by a mix of formal and informal advice. 

More  recently  criticism  has  focused  on  the  fixed  nature  of  the  A-G  scale  and  the  need  to 
recalibrate  the  scale  to  allow  for  improvements  in  technology  which  have  taken  place  since 
the scale was first set which mean that “A” rated products are no longer at the leading edge of 
energy  efficiency.  A  more  detailed  description  of  the  directives  and  of  the  main  evaluation 
studies is given in Appendix 1 of the background study. 

The  background  study  identifies  some  positive social  impacts  due  to  the  broadening  of  the 
scope of the ELD but the impacts are rather speculative. Anyhow, energy labelling does not 
have the same possible  short  term social impacts on low income households than minimum 
performance requirements might have, as it does not cut off products from the market. On the 
contrary, energy labelling guides consumers towards appliances that are cheaper over the life 
cycle  of  the  product  and  as  such  better  also  for  the  environment  and  society.  Doing  so,  it 
promotes increased demand of higher energy efficient appliances implying that over time the 
cost of these appliances will go down due to increased demand, which is positive particularly 
for low income households. Energy labelling does not put a constraint on household budget or 
restrict  the  choice  of  products  but  guides  consumers  towards  the  most  economic  and 
environment-friendly  products  over  the  life  cycle  of  the  product.  To  help  low  income 
households  to  benefit  from  these  savings,  apart  from  labelling  information,  incentives  for 
consumers  are  useful  to  further  facilitate  the  uptake  of  higher  class  models,  taking  into 
account  the  specific  economic  and  market  situation  in  each  Member  State.  Also,  public 
procurement can support this objective in creating demand for high-efficient appliances and 
help reducing the price through higher production series.      

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 ANNEX 11: ENERGY EFFICIENT PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND INCENTIVES 

This Annex describes the problems that can be tackled and the potential impacts (positive and 
negative)  of  changes  to  public  procurement  and  incentives  included  in  Options  3  and  4. 
Option 3 includes amending the ELD with coverage of all energy-using products (excluding 
means  of  transport)  and  energy-related  products.  The  ELD  would  be  implemented  through 
implementing measures rather than through Directives, and they would serve as a framework 
for Member State public procurement and incentives across the Internal Market.  

Option 4 includes repealing the ELD and implementing its provisions through the Ecodesign 
Directive.  It  would  cover  the  same  scope  and  include  the  same  actions  and  general 
implementation framework as analysed under the option 3. 

1. Problems 

•  Significant energy use and the related environmental impact from public authorities' 

energy-using products: 

Energy  consumption  from  public  authority  use  of  products  forms  a  notable  part  of  the 
problem  tackled  by  the  ELD  in  particular  once  expanded  beyond  household  appliances. 
Public authorities spend around 16% of the EU's Gross Domestic Product. Part of this is 
spent  on  energy  using  products  covered  by  the  ELD  with  often  even  greater  shares  of 
expenditures on the energy used by the product during its lifetime. 

•  Purchasing  practices  by  public  authorities  cost  them  more  over  the  lifetime  of  the 

product when purchasing cheaper but energy inefficient products 

Public authorities will lose significant amounts of money each year if they do not take into 
account the costs of the energy use of products when deciding on which products to buy. 
Although  limited  budget  availability  would  incite  public  authorities  to  opt  for  products 
with lower purchasing price, they risk paying more at term for its use (even where energy 
labels are in place). 

•  Slow  market  uptake  of  more  energy  efficient  products  holds  back  price  decreases 

and innovation in energy efficient products 

The failure of consumers, including public purchasers to take into account energy prices 
reduces sales of energy efficient products. Slow increases of market share for more energy 
efficient products in turn reduces the return on investments in energy efficient design: – as 
manufacturers get longer pay back periods for any investments to improve their products, 
so  are  less  willing  to  invest.  Over  time,  the  slower  rate  of  improvements  in  energy 
efficiency  will  have  a  great  effect  on  future  energy  use.  This  slow  rate  of  improvement 
holds back energy saving goals. 

2. Objectives 

Better  Public  procurement  and  the  introduction  of  incentives  in  Options  3  and  4  have  the 
following objectives: 

•  To  reduce  costs  for  public  authorities  (over  the  lifetime  of  products)  by  reducing  the 

annual energy bills; 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  To reduce consumption of energy and of other essential resource by products bought by 

public authorities; 

•  To  promote  innovation  in  energy  efficiency  of  products,  by  increasing  the  sales  of  the 

more energy-efficient products on the market; 

•  To avoid confused market signals to producers from a scattergun of incentive schemes. 

3. The 'Do Nothing Scenario' – problems with current practices 

A) Inefficient and costly Public procurement of energy using products 

Currently,  public  procurers  often  buy  products  which  are  more  expensive  for  the  authority 
than other products on the market, particularly once the running costs are taken into account. 

Taking an example from the market for water boilers (from an Ecodesign preparatory study): 
the table 11.1 shows that the product usually purchased is significantly more expensive over 
the  lifecycle  than  many  others  on  the  market.  It  is  also  more  energy  consuming  and 
environmentally harmful. 

Large water heaters 

Table 11.1: Energy performance and costs of large size water heater 
Primary energy 
consumption 
KWh/a 
7375 
5023 
5004 
4850 
4549 
4214 
4014 

Current model purchased 
Least life cycle cost 
5 
6 
7 
8 
Best available technology 
Source: Task 6 of the Ecodesign preparatory study on water heaters 

CO2 emissions 
over life cycle 
tonne 
75 
51 
51 
49 
46 
43 
41 

1189 
937 
4000 
1750 
2517 
1800 
2180 

Purchase price 
€ 

Life cycle cost 
€ 

9001 
6341 
11605 
7423 
8328 
7268 
8053 

•  The  EU  currently  lags  behind  its  global  trade  partners  in  implementation  of  public 
procurement  measures  aiming  at  improving  energy  efficiency  and  environmental 
improvement.  In  the  US  the  public  procurement  provisions  of  Energy  Star  have  been 
applied already for a long time and have for example contributed to driving upwards the 
entire energy efficiency market of office equipment. Similar provisions where introduced 
in  the  Community  at  the  end  of  2006  under  the  Energy  star  programme  covering  office 
equipment. 

•  No  framework  at  the  level  of  the  Internal  Market  exists  on  energy  efficient  public 
procurement or incentives. Divergent practices weaken the market signals for business. 

•  The  Commission  services  do  not  have  information  on  the  levels  of  public  procurement 
that looks particularly at energy efficiency considerations. For ''green'' public procurement 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a recent study “Take 5”119 shows that about 35% of procurement practices have significant 
'green' criteria while in other cases Member States inclusion of green criteria is weak.  

Drivers for Change 

•  The European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have recognized the 
importance  of  using  public  procurement  as  a  means  of  stimulating  sustainable 
consumption  and  production  and  pulling  environmental  technologies  into  the  market 
place120.  

• 

In  June  2006,  the  Council  has  adopted  the  renewed  EU  Sustainable  Development 
Strategy121 including the goal to bring the average level of EU green public procurement 
procedures  that  include  energy  and  environmental  considerations  up  to  the  standard 
currently  achieved  by  the  best  performing  member  states  by  2010.  However,  voluntary 
actions  at  national  level  are  not  sufficiently  connected  and  implementation  is  not 
sufficiently dynamic and forward-looking to drive the performance of products upwards. 
Divergent national and regional approaches send conflicting signals to producers, and as a 
result the full potential of the Internal Market is not realized. 

•  Directive  2006/32/EC  on  energy  end-use  efficiency  and  energy  services122  provides  that 
the public sector should fulfil an exemplary role by adopting at least two measures from a 
list in Annex aimed at procurement of energy efficient equipment and buildings. 

•  The new Energy Star Regulation123 already obliges central government to apply, in their 
procurement  procedures  for  office  equipment,  the  energy  efficiency  requirements  as 
included in Energy Star Standards. 

Experience points out that these commitments will not solve the problems by themselves124. 
Option  3  and  4  are  in  line  with  these  commitments  and  expand  the  policy  approach  in  the 
Energy Star Regulation. 

B) Lack of stimulation of innovation and the longer term impact on prices and energy 
efficiency 

Different market signals from public purchasing limits sales of more efficient products. This 
has two effects:  

• 

• 

It  limits  innovation  in  more  energy  efficient  products,  by  reducing  the  attractiveness  of 
investment by manufacturers; and 

It limits the economies of scale that the producer could benefit from – and so the price of 
the more energy-efficient products remains higher.  

119 http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/take_5.pdf 
120  EP resolution of 5 July 2005 on the Communication on the implementation of ETAP (COM(2005) 16 final). 
121  http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/sds2006/index_en.htm  
122 OJ L 114, 27/04/2006. 
123 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/energy_star_programme_en.htm  
124 Also, see Commission Working Paper SEC(2008) 2126/2. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 11.1: Dynamic effects of increasing market share (proxied by time) on price  

Evolution of prices by type of energy efficiency (kg laundry/kWh )

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

)
6
0
0
2
€ 
(
s
e
c
i
r
P

3.5

5.0

5.3

5.6

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1991

1994

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Own calculations based on data provided by Copernicus Institute of the Universiteit Utrecht. 

Figure  11.1  above  points  to  this  missed  potential.  This  describes  the  market  for  washing 
machines in the Netherlands. The horizontal axis represents time. The vertical axis represents 
the price of the washing machines. The lines represent different models of washing machines 
based on the energy efficiency. (The energy efficiency is measured as the load (in kg) for a 
kWh of electricity. The higher the load per kWh the more efficient is the appliance125).  

The  figure  illustrates  that  the  price  for  a  given  energy  efficiency  level  declines  over  time 
which  is  due  to  learning  and  economies  of  scale  in  production  as  volumes  of  production  of 
more  efficient  models  increase.  This  price  decline  accelerates  once  a  new,  more  efficient 
model is established on the market.  

A broad literature survey for energy using products and energy related products indicates that 
for  every  doubling  of  the  cumulative  volume  sold,  costs  for  these  products  would  decrease 
between 15-20 %.126  
In the Netherlands, according to a report by IVM127, the introduction of incentives for more 
energy efficient white goods in the Netherlands from 2001 led to significantly faster market 
penetration of more efficient products. This is estimated to have brought forward the energy 
efficiency of the market by 3 years – so speeding up the decline of prices by 3 years.  

125 For example, to wash 5 kg of laundry, with an appliance whose efficiency is 3.5kg/kWh, the appliance will 
need to use 1.43 kWh (5kg/3.5 kg/kWh) and operate during almost 86 minutes (1.43*60 minutes). An appliance 
whose efficiency is of 5.6 kg/kWh would, for the same 5 kg of laundry, use only 0.88 kWh and run less than 53 
minutes. 
126 Junginger et al (2008) Technological learning in the energy sector. This study has been performed within the 
framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate 
Change (WAB). 
127 IVM and consortium for the European Commission (DG ENV) "The use of differential VAT rates to promote 
changes in consumption and innovation" (2008). 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Public procurement and incentives (as for energy labelling) have the same  kind  of  effect,  if 
designed correctly.  

On  the  reasonable  assumption  that  earlier  returns  on  investment  will  lead  to  greater 
investment  by  manufacturers  in  efficiency,  greater  rates  of  innovation  would  result  if 
incentives and public procurement across Member States pulled in the same direction. Public 
procurement can provide market rewards for more efficient products, providing manufacturers 
with  incentives  to  invest  in  design  of  more  efficient  products  (whilst  still  saving  authorities 
costs). 

A  recent  OECD  Report  on  the  Environmental  Performance  of  Public  Procurement  (2003) 
refers  to  several  examples  of  product  invention  in  response  to  procurement  initiatives, 
including  the  development  of  highly  energy  efficient  clothes  dryers,  electric  motors,  and 
office copiers128.  

C) Reduced impacts on the market from a scatter-gun approach to incentives 

Many Member States provide financial incentives, such as grants for substitution of electricity 
for heating (Sweden), ecological tax reform (Germany), refunds for Category A++ appliances 
(Belgium) that intend to encourage consumers to buy more energy efficient products. Many of 
these incentives are linked to the implementing Directives of the ELD. Where this is not the 
case,  the  criteria  can  differ  substantially  from  one  country  to  another.  The  result  is  a 
fragmentation of the Internal Market for the products concerned. 

The  following  tables  show  the  example  of  fiscal  incentives  on  roof  insulation  and  energy 
saving windows in some countries with similar climatic conditions.  

Table 11.2: minimum requirements and incentives for insulation in some Member States 
2005; the case of roof insulation. 

Member State 
Belgium (Fed) 
Brussels 
Wallonia 
France 
Luxembourg 
Germany 

Minimum R 
value129 
2.5 
4 
3 
3 
4.3 
4.5 

Amount 
€ 
tax reduction: 40% of the price 
20/ m² 
4-8/m² 
Tax credit: 25 or 40 % of the price 
13-15 /m² 
100 % interest rate paid by the Bund 

Maximum 
amount/share granted 
€ 
2 600 
20% of the price 
10 000 
- 
- 
- 

Despite of similar climate conditions, the incentives are based on quite different performance 
criteria. For example, a producer that supplies windows with a U-value130 of 2.0 will benefit 
from  increased  demand  due  to  fiscal  incentives  only  in  Belgium  but  not  for  example  in 
Luxembourg or Germany. This limits the economies of scale that the producer and ultimately 
the  consumer  could  benefit  from,  if  the  basis  for  incentives  was  the  same  across  Member 
States for similar climate conditions.  

Table 11.3: minimum requirements and incentives for insulation in some Member States 
2005; the case of windows. 

128 Westling 2000.   
129 R-value is used to describe insulation properties of certain building insulation materials. The SI unit for R-
value is Kelvin square meters per watt (K·m²/W). 
130  The  U-value  describes  how  well  a  building  material  conducts  heat.  It  measures  the  rate  of  heat  transfer 
through  a  material  of  known  thickness  over  a  given  area  under  standard  conditions  (Unit:  W/m2  ºC  of 
temperature difference between both sides of the heat transfer). 

71 

 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 
Belgium (Fed) 
Brussels 
Wallonia 
France 
Luxembourg 
Germany 
Austria (Vienna) 

Maximum U 
value 
2 
2 
2 
1.5 - 2 
1-1.3 
1.3 
1.9 

Amount 
€ 
tax reduction: 40 % of the price 
25/m² 
40/m² 
Tax credit: 25 or 40 % of the price 
12-30/m² 
100 % interest rate paid by the Bund 
2-3 % of the annual loan cost 

Maximum amount 
granted € 
2 600 
20 % of the price 
10 000 
- 
- 
- 
- 

4. Options on public procurement and incentives in Options 3 and 4 

Under either of these two options, the ELD would provide that: 

• 

implementing  measures  for  products  would  use  the  labelling  classes  to  set 
performance thresholds for public procurement or incentive schemes. 

This would not necessarily cover all products for which there are implementing measures but 
only products that are directly relevant for the use of public procurement or incentives. The 
relevance would have to be demonstrated by product specific impact assessments. 

For some of the most relevant products - office equipment – the Council and the Parliament 
have  already  accepted131  introducing  compulsory  public  procurement  based  on  energy 
efficiency  criteria.132.  These  existing  measures  would  not  be  duplicated,  but  the  approach 
extended to other relevant products.  

The  thresholds  set  for  public  procurement  in  implementing  measures  would  be  set  (in  line 
with a requirement in the Directive) at a level that they would: 

•  be at an appropriate level which would ensure sufficient competition in the market;  

• 

take  into  account  the  potential  of  the  procurement  to  stimulate  the  market  for  energy 
efficient  products.  Considerations  include  setting  the  level  at  a  sufficient  high  level  to 
stimulate  the  market  but  also  on  whether  the  share  of  public  purchases  is  sufficient  to 
influence the market; 

•  assure that the threshold is such that the products' life cycle costs are lower than current 

practices. 

Member States have already committed to make use of public procurement as an instrument 
to generate cost-effective energy savings. Article 5 and Annex VI of Directive 2006/32/EC on 
energy end-use efficiency and energy services sets out that they shall ensure that the public 
sector  purchase  energy  efficient  equipment  with  minimized  life-cycle  costs  to  ensure  cost-
effectiveness.  

5. Benefits and Costs 

The key benefits from introduction of the measures in Options 3 and 4 would be: 

131 Regulation EC N°106/2008 on Energy Star. 
132 Without prejudice to cost-effectiveness and taking into account the minimum thresholds laid down in Article 
7  of  Directive  2004/18/EC  on  the  coordination  of  procedures  for  the  award  of  public  works  contracts,  public 
supply contracts and public service contracts. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Net financial benefits to public authorities; 

•  Reductions in the cost for the public budget of achieving existing energy goals and related 

environmental goals; 

•  Reductions in environmental harm from public actions; 

•  Greater effectiveness of the Energy Label and Ecodesign Directives;  

•  Public  procurement  levels  would  be  an  incentive  for  manufacturers  to  invest  in  more 
energy- and resource-efficient products thus drawing the market upwards, the levels could 
also be set such that they facilitate the gradual adjustment of the minimum requirements 
over time.  

•  Stimulation of innovation in energy-efficiency and decreases in price of energy efficient 

products over time.  

The key costs from the introduction of the measures could be for some  product groups,  but 
not  all,  thresholds  that  raise  the  upfront  costs  for  authorities.  Even  where  there  are  cost 
savings  over  the  lifetime,  this  may  cause  problems  with  existing  accounting  practices  and 
funding in some authorities. 

Note that the choice on where to put the performance level with associated upfront costs and 
energy savings would be made in the implementing measures and decided through committee 
procedure. The Commission believes that this procedure offers sufficient guarantees to avoid 
the  imposition  of  unjustified  increases  in  upfront  purchase  costs  when  setting  thresholds. 
Moreover,  guarantees  are  taken  up  in  the  legislation  on  what  should  be  considered  when 
drafting  the  implementing  measures  allow  for  appropriate  outcomes.  It  also  ensures  that 
sensitivity analysis is carried out to take into account various welfare and living standards in 
the EU.  

These benefits and costs are described in more detail below. 

A) Direct financial benefits to public authorities 

There would be net financial gain for public authorities from the purchasing of more energy-
efficient  products  that  would  result  from  the  options  including  public  procurement.  The 
financial  benefit  of  purchasing  of  products  can  not  be  judged  only  from  looking  at  the 
purchase price – but must take into account the costs of energy over the lifecycle.  

It is important to note that the most cost-efficient product over the lifetime might also have a 
lower purchase price than the products currently purchased.  

•  Example 1: Water heaters  

7 % of water heaters sold on the EU market are bought by public authorities. The prices paid 
in  the  market  and  the  life-cycle  costs  are  shown  above  in  Table  11.1.  The  Table  shows  the 
energy  performance  and  prices  for  different  types  of  large  size  water  heaters.  The  current 
standard  model  costs  €  1 200  in  purchase  cost  and  €  9 000  in  life-cycle  cost.  As  the  table 
shows, the product with lowest life-cycle cost (€ 6 350) is also the least expensive to purchase 
(€ 950) but is not the most commonly purchased.  

Therefore,  public  procurers  could  buy  even  more  energy  efficient  products  than  least  life-
cycle cost without being worse off than with their current procurement practices. Indeed, in 
this particular case, on the assumptions used, public procurers would save € 950 by shifting 
from current models purchased to the best technology available on the market.  

73 

 
 
 
 
However,  thresholds  for  public  procurement  would  be  likely  to  be  set  well  below  the  best 
technology on the market, to take into account the difficultly some authorities have in funding 
purchases (partly due to budgeting rules that do not take into account future savings) and to 
leave  sufficient  competition  on  the  market.  This  would  have  to  be  carefully  considered  in 
product specific impact assessments. 

In cases like this, the structure of the market may not change significantly in future: the prices 
and  costs  of  energy  will  change  (energy  costs  probably  being  higher  than  those  used  in  the 
data, which dates from before 2008). The Ecodesign of Energy Using Products Directive may 
bring  forward  implementing  measures  e.g.  for  water  heaters  with  the  aim  of  removing 
inefficient products from the market. However, in practice, future minimum requirements set 
by  the  Ecodesign  Directive  could  well  be  set  below  the  energy  efficiency  level  that  brings 
minimum  life-cycle  cost  (to  account  for  other  considerations  such  as  'competitiveness'  or 
affordability,  in  particular  regarding  low  income  households.)  This  would  leave  the  market 
structure similar to the existing structure. 

•  Example 2: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems (HVAC Systems) 

A life cycle cost evaluation of alternative HVAC systems carried out in the US in 2005, has 
led  a  public  authority  to  buy  a  HVAC  system,  based  on  an  alternative  energy-efficient 
technology, whose energy consumption was markedly lower so that cost savings outweighed 
higher capital and maintenance costs as well as yielding environmental benefits in terms of 
reduced greenhouse gases and other air pollutants133. 

•  Example 3: Public street lighting 

Public procurement makes up 39 % of the market for lights that can be used for illuminating 
large spaces. Other uses are in industry or for example purchases for football stadiums. If the 
2.1  million  street  lights  currently  procured  per  year  would  be  upgraded  to  best  available 
technology,  there  would  be  savings  of  €  323  million   over  the  life  cycle  (while  at  the  same 
time saving an additional 7.7 million tonne of CO2 over the life cycle of the product).134 

The  above  are  examples  where,  after  an  extensive  study,  performance  levels  could  be  set 
below  which  public  procurement  and  incentives  are  not  allowed.  Other  examples  can  be 
found where it will not make sense to set such performance levels and the product by product 
assessment methodology would then not justify action.  

Estimating the direct financial benefit 

The full financial benefit to public authorities from introduction of Option 3 or 4 can not be 
calculated.  It  would  depend  on  the  thresholds  set  in  implementing  measures,  the  relative 
purchase  price  of  products,  energy  costs  and  the  number  of  products  bought  by  authorities. 
Product specific impact assessments will be used to estimate benefits (and costs) of possible 
thresholds in implementing measures. However, indications of the potential financial benefits 
can be estimated for some examples and indicate that the potential financial benefits are very 
large. 

In the water heater example, setting thresholds at the level of least life cycle cost is estimated 
to save €2bn.

133  Fuller,  Sieglinede  and  Stephen  R.  Petersen,  1996  Life-Cycle  Costing  Manual  for  the  Federal  Energy 
Management  Program,  referred  to  in  2003  OECD  Report  on  the  environmental  performance  of  public 
procurement. 
134 Calculations based on PWC (2008) Study on public procurement for energy efficient products in the 
European Union. The same CO2 per MWh conversion factor as for water heaters has been used. 

74 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
Table 11.4: Aggregate results of public procurement (PP) requirements 

Absolute differences 

Current 
procurement 
practice 

Purchase cost million €  
Total Life cycle cost M €  
Energy consumption GWh 
CO2 total emissions Mt 

594 
7,611 
70,195 
48 

Compared with current procurement 
practice 

100% PP with least 
life cycle cost 
-45 
-2,063 
-22,734 
-15.5 

100% PP with more 
ambitious products 
441 
-1,546 
-26,573 
-18.1 

B) Reducing the cost for the public budget and environmental harm 

By  using  energy  efficiency  to  meet  environmental  goals,  society  is  able  to  achieve 
environmental goals at a lower cost than through many other methods.   

This is particularly the case under the threshold for public procurement likely to be set under 
the implementing measures; the purchase of a more efficient appliance would save authorities 
money over the life of the product.  

Authorities  could  voluntarily  go  further,  to  gain  additional  environmental  savings  from 
purchasing  best  available  technology.  This  would  come  at  additional  cost,  though  it  would 
still be likely to be more efficient than other means – but this extra effort is not what Options 
3 and 4 would require.  

Environmental problems impose costs on society, for example through sickness from poor air 
quality  arising  from  power  generation  emissions.  Member  States  set  environmental  policy 
goals  to  reduce  these  harms  and  spend  public  money  to  achieve  them.  Yet,  the  expenditure 
decisions of public authorities tend to contribute to environmental harm. This is not efficient: 
a contradiction in public policy. Usually, the way to best cut those costs is to reduce the harm 
caused by public authorities. 

In  the  example  above,  in  purchasing  the  most  efficient  technology  public  authorities  would 
save 34 tonne of CO2 over the life cycle of each water heater, which at € 30 per tonne of CO2 
is valued at an additional € 920 savings/product. That €920 is a social benefit, but the public 
authority also benefits from reduced energy expenditure If the public authority had to achieve 
that  €920  benefit  in  ways  which  cost  the  same  upfront,  but  which  did  not  save  energy, 
achieving that benefit would be more expensive. 

In the water heater example, in terms of CO2 savings, ambitious public procurement targets 
on energy efficiency would save 15.5 million tonnes of CO2 compared to the current public 
procurement practices. This represents savings of 38 % and is valued at € 540 million at € 30 
per tonne of CO2.  

C) Greater effectiveness of the ELD and Ecodesign Directives 

The ELD labels provide information to consumers that allows them to choose products which 
fit their needs and save their money over the lifetime of the product – in particular to avoid 
selection of products with a cheap upfront cost but which has greater energy costs during use. 
By  doing  so,  the  Directive  promotes  energy  efficiency  across  the  EU  for  economic,  geo-
political and environmental goals. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  energy  label  promotes  innovation  by  increasing  market  rewards  for  more  efficient 
products.  Shaping  public  procurement  –  which  is  a  significant  part  of  many  markets  –  to 
reward  the  more  efficient  products  simultaneously  provides  security  of  returns  and  higher 
returns for investments in innovation in energy efficiency. The higher the thresholds are, the 
greater this effect would be. The product specific impact assessments will have to consider the 
appropriate  market  share  of  appliances  for  appropriate  competition  based  on  the  product 
group and the specificities of the market in question.   

Although in principle minimum requirements for the Ecodesign Directive will be set at least 
life-cycle cost, for some products this might harm the competitiveness of the industry unduly 
or  affect  affordability  for  consumers.  In  such  cases,  minimum  requirements  will  be  only 
gradually set at the least life-cycle cost level. For those products, public procurement can be 
used to reward products that already satisfy higher energy efficiency standards and act as an 
incentive  to  accelerate  and  smoothen  the  transition  towards  more  stringent  minimum 
requirements. 

For example, the technical study for water pumps suggests setting minimum requirements so 
that 10 % of the current less efficient water pumps on the market would be excluded in 2010. 
The requirements could be gradually strengthened so that 60 % of the current best performing 
products can remain on the market in 2020. In 2020, this would generate energy savings of 
5.8  TWh  per  annum.  In  contrast,  setting  minimum  requirements  at  the  least  life-cycle  cost 
would imply that only 30 % of the best performing products  currently on the market would 
remain viable. In 2020, this would generate energy savings of 8.8 TWh per annum but would 
come at an adjustment cost of € 1 billion to industry.135 Here, the role of labelling and public 
procurement could be to allow for a smooth and accelerated transition towards more energy 
efficient  products.  Setting  public  procurement  requirements  at  least  life-cycle  cost,  would 
have direct environmental impacts, would drive the market upwards, would save money for 
public authorities and would leave from the start 30 % of the market open for competition.  

D) Long-term economic benefits from increased innovation 

There is also a long-term financial benefit for authorities from speeding penetration of energy-
efficient technologies and innovation. Increasing volumes of energy-efficient products brings 
down purchase price of future purchases of efficient products (through economies of scale) so 
allowing  authorities  to  save  energy  in  future,  whilst  greater  innovation  means  that  more 
highly efficient products will become available to them in the future.  

This  would  benefit  both  consumers  and  public  authorities  –  but  to  bring  about  these 
innovation effects, public procurement would need to promote purchase of the products in the 
top of the market. Whilst this is possible, the thresholds in implementing measures are likely 
to be set below this level, to take into account financing considerations in public authorities. 

•  The benefits of thresholds for incentives  

The benefits of incentives for promoting more energy-efficient products depend on a number 
of factors, but are similar to the benefits from public procurement measures – promoting the 
uptake  of  more  efficient  products,  with  both  direct  and  long-term  economic  and 
environmental impacts. 

The  benefits  of  setting  minimum  levels  for  incentives  in  Member  States  come  from  the 
concentration of the market signal sent to manufacturers – if Member State incentives pull the 
market in the same direction, the greater the stimulus to market penetration and innovation.  

135 Note that the adjustment cost is provided by industry and not yet fully justified. See technical study on water 
pumps http://www.ecomotors.org/files/Lot11_Pumps_FinalReport.pdf 

76 

 
 
                                                 
Typically,  though  depending  on  market  structure,  the  minimum  levels  for  incentives  would 
need to be set at levels which concentrated market rewards on those products in the market 
which were innovative, and which assisted market penetration of products whose high upfront 
cost held back their penetration. The benefits achieved by the implementing measures in this 
regard  would  depend  on  the  appropriateness  of  the  level  set.  Clearly  a  sensitivity  analysis 
should take into account disparities of welfare among consumers in the EU.  

Costs 

As shown above, for many products, thresholds for public procurement will create savings for 
public  authorities,  particularly  over  the  life-cycle.  In  some  cases,  thresholds  could  be  set  at 
levels  which  require  greater  upfront  purchase  costs  but  which  are  paid  back  from  saved 
energy costs. The product specific impact assessments will have to consider the pay back time 
for  the  proposed  threshold  included  in  the  implementing  measures.  As  the  implementing 
the  Regulatory  Committee  of  Member  States 
measures  have 
representatives, possible difficultly of some public authorities to fund upfront purchases will 
be flagged out  during the discussions. 

to  be  endorsed  by 

The  level  of  benefits  (or  costs)  from  a  life-cycle  perspective  for  most  office  equipment  is 
rather easy to determine, as the use pattern is rather homogeneous and predictable. However, 
as  the  use  pattern  for  most  other  products  is  rather  user  specific,  it  should  be  properly 
considered in the product specific impact assessments. Also, the Regulatory Committee will 
have  a  say  when  setting  levels  for  incentives;  Anyway  it  would  stay  with  the  individual 
Member State to decide whether or not to have an incentive scheme – nothing in the Options 
3 or 4 relating to incentives would place costs on the Member States, authorities or the private 
sector. 

6. Conclusions 

•  Member  States  have  already  committed  to  make  use  of  public  procurement  as  an 
instrument to generate cost-effective energy savings. Article 5 and Annex VI of Directive 
2006/32/EC  on  energy  end-use  efficiency  and  energy  services  sets  out  that  they  shall 
ensure  that  the  public  sector  purchase  energy  efficient  equipment  with  minimized  life-
cycle costs to ensure cost-effectiveness;  

•  Public procurement at the threshold levels are likely to be significantly less expensive over 
the life cycle than existing procurement practices: this will depend on the threshold levels 
set in implementing measures (even very ambitious public procurement requirements can 
be less expensive than current practices); 

• 

Inclusion  of  provisions  for  incentives  encourages  sales  of  innovative  products.  This  is 
important  for  reducing  the  prices  of  more-efficient  products  and  increasing  the  rates  of 
innovation in energy efficiency. A broad literature survey for energy using products and 
energy related products indicates that for every doubling of the cumulative volume sold, 
costs for these products would decrease between 15-20 %136;  

136 Junginger et al (2008) Technological learning in the energy sector. This study has been performed within the 
framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate 
Change (WAB). 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

Inclusion of the option would support and enhance the operation of the energy label and 
Ecodesign Directive and save substantial amounts of energy and related emissions, such as 
CO2 or NOx;  

•  Use  of  public  procurement  in  this  way  is  usually  a  cheaper  way  to  achieve  existing 

environmental goals than other public policy measures; 

•  The  setting  of  harmonized  levels  for  public  incentives  should  take  into  account  market 
realities  in  the  EU  and  in  particular  the  differences  in  welfare  and  purchasing  power  of 
consumers  which  are  still  divergent  across  the  27  Member  States.  Decisions  in 
implementing  measures  will  be  based  on  analysis  of  the  financial  benefits  and  costs  to 
public authorities.  

78 

 
ANNEX 12: ADMINISTRATIVE AND TRANSPOSITION COST  
This  Annex  addresses  administrative  cost  as  discussed  in  Chapter  5.5  and  based  on  the 
background study. The presented figures are indicative. 

Main administrative costs for Members States and the Commission: 

Amendment  of  the  Framework  Directive:  €5  million  in  total  (€1  million  for  administrative 
work on the amendment and €4 million for transposition by Member States).  

Transposition cost for the 27 Member States from amended Framework Directive or amended 
or new implementing Directives of €4 million137.  

Amend an existing implementing Directive or develop a new implementing Directive under 
the  existing  ELD:    €4.7  million  (720.000138  million  for  administrative  work  on  the 
amendment/development  of  the  new  Directive  and  €4  million  for  transposition  by  Member 
States).  

It is to be noted that if the amendment to the Framework ELD would lead to implementation 
of the ELD with implementing Regulation or Decisions instead of Directives, the one-off €5 
million revision cost would lead to savings of €40 million in transposition costs alone for the 
ten  first  upgraded  or  newly  developed  implementing  measure  adopted  under  the  new 
framework. 

Administrative cost for manufacturers and retailers 

Changes in administrative cost to manufacturers and retailers will occur only if the scope is 
extended and/or implementing measures are set on new products. These costs will be assessed 
in product specific impact assessments. The background study shows that the costs are likely 
to  vary  considerably  depending  on  the  product  involved,  the  number  of  models  subject  to 
testing  and  the  degree  of  testing  already  carried  out  for  other  purposes,  such  as  under  the 
Ecodesign Directive. One of such shared costs is the testing for conformity assessment, which 
is estimated to €1000-3000 per product type. Another cost for manufacturers is to provide the 
background label for retailers on products that are displayed in shops and the black-and-white 
strip for every product shipped (see Annex 4). 

The  information  required  for  the  label  and  information  fiche  is  derived  from  measurements 
manufacturers  already  carry  out  in  the  course  of  product  development  and  quality  control. 
Most  manufacturers  already  publish  the  basic  information  in  their  brochure  or  technical 
literature but not in easily accessible form for consumers.139 Thus the matter seems to be more 

137 Precisely €4.050.000 (27 MS x 150 000€). 
138  The  background  study  estimated  that  the  revision  of  an  existing  implementing  Directive  would  cost  less 
(€360.000)  than  the  development  of  a  new  one.  However,  there  is  no  such  difference  in  cost  given  that  new 
technical studies are needed due to market and technical development, including product development, and the 
same administrative/legal procedure will be used for both. This does not include any add on for overhead costs. 
139 Compliance cost assessment, The energy labelling (refrigerators and freezers) regulations 1994, Department 
of the Environment. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
about  the  accessibility  and  easiness  to  understand  the  information  rather  than  the  additional 
cost of providing it.  

The cost for retailers is limited to the display of the right label on the product associated with 
the strip provided in the product packaging. Accordingly, given that only simple information 
requirements are set on manufacturers and retailers there is no risk that these actors would not 
be able to meet the set criteria, unlike in some cases when setting minimum requirements.  

In  summary,  the  background  study  shows  that  most  of  the  energy  efficiency  measures  are 
cost-effective, including energy labelling. In many cases there is some increase in operating 
cost to manufacturers and retailers due to energy labelling requirements. However, these costs 
can  be  passed  on  the  consumer.  The  background  study  shows  that  energy  labelling  leads  to 
net money savings for the use, as electricity cost over the life time of the appliance will be 
bigger than any additional purchasing cost for the more efficient model. For example, in the 
case  of  EU  white  goods  manufacturers,  their  operation  has  become  more  profitable, 
appliances cost less and the efficiency has improved with help of technological development 
and guidance towards more efficient and profitable appliances by the energy label – despite 
fears by manufacturers when the policy action was initially introduced in the 90ies.  

80 

 
 
 
  
ANNEX 13: MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT 

DIRECTORATE D - New and Renewable Energy Sources, Energy Efficiency & Innovation 
Energy efficiency of products & Intelligent Energy – Europe 

Brussels, 10.03.2008 

MINUTES 

Consultation meeting on the revision of the Energy Labelling Directive 92/75/EEC on 8 
February 2008.  
Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB), room 0D, rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels,  

Participants: see Annex 1 to these minutes. 

The Chairman opened the meeting and outlined the context for the stakeholder consultation. 
The renewed Sustainable Development Strategy calls upon the Commission to propose an EU 
Consumption and Production Action Plan (DG ENV) to "help identify and overcome barriers 
for SCP and to ensure  better  coherence between different  related policy areas. The possible 
revision of the Energy Labelling Directive makes part of this context as well as of the parallel 
initiative on Sustainable Industrial Policy led by DG ENTR. The purpose of this consultation 
is  to  collect  comments  and  views  from  all  stakeholders  on  the  main  policy  options  for  a 
possible  revision  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Framework  Directive  92/75/EC.  Part  of  the 
SCP/SIP  would  be  to  extend  the  scopes  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  2005/32/EC  and  of  the 
Labelling  Directive  92/75/EEC,  vehicles  and  their  parts  (such  as  tyres  or  air-conditioning) 
being excluded. 

The  Chairman  then  gave  an  overview  on  the  next  steps  in  preparing  Ecodesign  and  energy 
labelling  implementing  measures.  For  SCP/SIP  it  is  important  to  maximize  synergies  and 
consistency between these two legislative tools, as well as with Energy-Star, Ecolabel, RoHs, 
WEEE  and  other  relevant  legislation.  In  that  context,  it  could  make  sense  to  extend  the 
mandate  of  the  Energy  Labelling  regulatory  Committees  to  also  cover  the  Ecodesign 
Directive.  
Stakeholders  were  invited  to  continue  providing  comments  by  22  February  2008;  the 
Commission  would  aim  making  a  proposal  on  revising  92/75/EC  before  the  summer  break 
2008. 
The  meeting  was  structured  based  on  the  questions  and  policy  options  discussed  in  the 
that  was  published  on  20  December  2007  on 
Commission  working  document 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm. 
The  comments  made  during  the  meeting  and  noted  in  these  minutes  are  subject  to  possible 
fine-tuning or change by stakeholders by 22 February, at latest.   

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Due to the urgency to update the existing Energy  Labelling  Implementing Directives it  was 
agreed to conduct a discussion on the design of the label outside the context of the revision 
process towards the end of the meeting. 

The summary of the discussion is as follows: 

The meeting participants fully agreed on the general principle of reinforcing the use of energy 
labelling (Q2). 

Question/Policy Option 

Yes 

No 

Q2. Do you agree to the general principle of reinforcing the use of (energy labelling) in 
order to more vigorously contribute to the Union’s objectives on climate mitigation, 
competitiveness and sustainable product policy? 

X 

Upon this agreement, a discussion was conducted on a possible wider scope of the revised 
directive, as summarised in below table.   

Question/Policy Option 

Yes 

No 

Q6. Would you like to add other products to the scope of the labelling Directive than 
those covered at present (household appliances only)?  

P1. Extending labelling to additional household appliances displayed in shops/outlets, 
such as televisions, water heaters, boilers … 

X 

X 

P2. Extending labelling to non-household energy-using appliances, such as electric 
motors 
P3. Extending labelling to non-energy using products, such as windows, tyres or services  X 

X 

X 

The  majority  of  the  meeting  participants  responded  positively  to  the  above  questions, 
particularly  as  to  adding  other  energy-using  or  (non  energy  –using  but)  energy-related 
products to the scope of the directive. On the question to add all non-energy using products 
into the scope of the directive the majority of participants expressed doubts.  

ITALY  supported  by  the  UK  expressed  a  negative  position  on  adding  systematically  non-
energy  using  products  into  the  scope.  Instead,  it  was  supported  that  'energy-related'  non-
energy  using  products  could  be  covered  (except  vehicle  parts,  such  as  tyres)  if  an  impact 
assessment  so  would  advice;  therefore  the  revised  Framework  Directive  should  keep  that 
possibility opened in selected well justified cases. The NETHERLANDS felt that we should 
only label carefully selected non EUP.  EUROACE  supported  labelling  of windows, but felt 
that  any  label  on  insulation  products  would  not  be  useful.  FRANCE  and  GERMANY  had 
doubts on going beyond non energy-related non EUP.   

The discussion on the  possible  revised scope led to the question on content and type of  the 
label to be used, as summarised in the below table. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question/Policy Option 

Q3. For energy using products, would you favour the use of an energy label focusing on 
the energy consumption in use 
or of an ‘Ecodesign label’, (near to the Eco-label showing the ‘best’) giving the global 
environment performance of the product throughout its life-cycle? 

P5b. Replace the energy label by an ‘Ecodesign’ label combining several significant 
environmental parameters 

Q4. Are you in favour of adding CO2 on the energy label? How could reliable 
information be assured in the light of different energy mixes in the 27 Member States 

P5a. Provision of additional product information on the energy label, such as CO2 
emissions or annual running costs 

Q5. Are you in favour of adding annual running costs on the energy label?  

Yes 

No 

      X 

X 

X 

    X 

(X) 

X 

For energy-using products there was unanimity on the need to maintain the energy label with 
focus  on  energy  consumption  in  use  phase,  including  the  indication  of  the  consumption  of 
other relevant consumables during the use phase, in line with the present successful scheme.  

Environmental NGOs stressed that the urgency was to address energy consumption (while not 
affecting  other  environmental  parameters)  and  the  need  to  urgently  review  the  existing 
implementing Directives.  

Stakeholders  requested  to  keep  the  message  clear  and  simple  and  not  to  indicate  additional 
environmental information such as CO2, except possibly if the scope was broadened towards 
non-energy using products. CECED reminded that indicating CO2 would be neither feasible 
nor  enforceable  and  therefore  should  not  be  a  legal  requirement.  ORGALIME  supports  this 
view  as  far  as  the  use  phase  is  concerned  and  clarifies  that  for  the  rest  of  the  life  cycle 
information CO2 emissions may be relevant for some products. Including this option into the 
legal framework may be appropriate, as the question is about possible practical difficulties to 
collect the necessary data. UK was not against indicating some CO2 footprint as such but not 
necessarily on the label.   

ANEC  and  BEUC,  supported  by  Italy  and  France,  saw  a  danger  in  mixing  the  energy  label 
with  other  environmental  information,  as  consumers  need  a  simple  message;  carbon 
discussion should be kept out of the label. The energy label should focus on energy and other 
consumables  at  use  phase  and  should  not  aim  at  including  other  environmental  parameters 
during the life-cycle. The key for consumers is that the label provides reliable information on 
the  energy  consumption  of  running  an  appliance  in  real  life  situation  and  on  the  most 
consumer relevant functional performance (as running cycle of washing machines). This is in 
fact anyway a way to indirectly contribute to preserve the environment.  

On the indication of the running cost, FRANCE, supported by ANEC and BEUC, stated that 
standard running cost in the context of the 27+7 countries implementing the European energy 
label  would  never  match  with  the  real  running  cost  to  the  consumer.  Instead  of  helping,  it 
would  contribute  to  disinformation  of  consumers.  UK  stated  that  running  cost  is  important 
information to consumers but recognised that practicalities hinder their inclusion in the label. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROCOMMERCE reminded that sales personnel can not take the responsibility and are not 
able  to  convey  complex  environmental  information  to  consumers.  The  label  must  remain 
simple and convincing for both consumers and sales personnel in order to be efficient. 

ORGALIME considered that it could be useful in some cases to open the possibility for the 
indication of other environmental parameters in the revised Framework Directive. It would be 
a  pity  not  to  have  this  possibility,  if  the  need  was  there  in  the  future  (change  of  priority  in 
environmental concerns) and/or for particular product groups. 

A  request  was  made,  supported  by  BELGIUM,  for  further  synergies  between  various  tools 
(Ecodesign, energy labelling, Energy-Star, Ecolabel, RoHs, WEEE). 

It was summarised that the Framework Directive should: 

- 

focus on consumption of energy and other resources in use for energy-using products 
and some non energy-using but energy related products 

-  keep  the  possibility  to  include  additional  information  useful  to  consumers  such  as 

functional performance; 

-  open  the  possibility  to  include  other  environmental  aspects  throughout  the  life  cycle 

for non-energy using products. 

On policy options 10, 7 and 8, there was a full agreement, as shown in the table below.   

Question/Policy Option 

Yes 

No 

P10. Implementation through Regulation rather than Directive 

P7. Tighter tolerances in the measurement standards 

P8. Better enforcement of the labelling requirements in respect of both manufacturers 
meeting the set standards and retailers displaying correct information 

X 

X 

X 

CECED  supported  by  ORGALIME  demanded  that  each  actor  be  held  responsible  for  its 
tolerances,  that  is,  manufacturers  to  be  responsible  only  for  product  variances  and  the 
variances  in  test  laboratories  to  be  decreased.  MARCOGAZ  supported  CECED  and 
considered  that  a  general  statement  on  tighter  tolerances  is  not  enough  but  should  include 
explicit figures. ANEC and BEUC supported and requested that the present test standards be 
revised  in  order  to  better  reflect  the  actual  use  of  the  appliance  (such  as  test  standard  on 
washing machines). 

To  improve  the  situation,  DENMARK  proposed,  supported  by  EUROACE,  to  increase 
information  sharing  and  provision  of  technical  data  between  test  laboratories,  although  it  is 
difficult  as  product  models  often  differ  in  different  Member  States.  A  European  database 
could be developed, e.g. within the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. ANEC requested 
that  all  market  surveillance  activities  in  Member  States  should  be  centrally  registered  and 
reported  to  the  Commission.  ITALY  reminded  that  the  Australian  scheme  also  includes 
sanctions and covers some 20-30 products tested annually. CECED doubted how much of this 
can  be  brought  into  the  legal  text  but  was  ready  to  contribute.    The  UNITED  KINGDOM 
suggested  that  technical  files  should  be  open  to  all  (at  least  MS),  and  the  verification 
procedure should be made easier. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
Question/Policy Option 

Yes 

No 

P6a. Reinforce provision of labels on internet sales 

P6b. Reinforce provision of labels in the context of other type of sales and advertising: 
www-pages, newspaper and TV adds … 

P6c. Provision of information on energy consumption (apart from labelling) in media and 
advertising: www-pages, newspaper, magazines and TV adds … 

P9. Legal protection of the label 

X 

X 

X 

X 

As  the  table  shows,  stakeholders  require  stronger  provisions  across  all  of  the  above  issues. 
Environmental  NGOs  requested  better  display  of  labels  outside  shops  and  in  departments 
where the products are sold, including second hand shops. 

The  Netherlands  foresaw  difficulties  in  how  to  enforce  a  provision  of  information  in  media 
and advertising.  

CECED  was  positive  about  legal  protection  of  the  label  but  wanted  to  avoid  any  possible 
royalty issues.  

The issue of possible alternative routes beyond the considerations in the Commission working 
document was addressed with no reactions by the stakeholders, as shown in the below table.  

Question/Policy Option 

Q8. Do you want to propose an alternative route beyond the considerations in this 
document? 

Yes 

No 

X 

Finally, the issue of how to ensure dynamic labelling was addressed  with considerations on 
the  type  of  specific  distortions  relevant  to  manufacturers,  retailers  and  consumers.  The 
summary results of the discussion are shown in the below table. 

Question/Policy Option 

Yes 

No 

Q7. In view of dynamic labelling, which approach would you suggest for the transition 
from an existing labelling scheme to a new labelling classification in order to cause 
minimum distortions? 

P4. Reinforce dynamic labelling with periodic reviews and rescaling of the ratings, 
including a possible redesign of the label and upgrading of the existing Directive 

X 

CECED  reminded  of  the  importance  of  an  adequate  return  to  the  investment  made  by  the 
industry, which is particularly important, if the scope of the directive is broadened and more 
products  are  to  be  labelled.  Consequently,  in  order  to  respond  to  the  request  for  a  dynamic 
labelling  scheme,  CECED  proposed  a  new  numerical  labelling  scale,  which  had  also  been 
presented  to  Member  States  the  day  before.  The  scale  would  reduce  the  burden  of 
manufacturers  in  the  event  of  updating  existing  labelling  schemes  and  would  not  require 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
manufacturers  and  retailers  to  'downgrade'  their  products  in  the  event  of  an  upgraded  label. 
The 'buy A' -slogan would have to be replaced by a 'buy green' -slogan. 

CECED continued that the indication of the label is legally binding for manufacturers but they 
should  not  be  held  responsible  for  re-labelling  of  already  sold  products.  EICTA  supported 
CECED  position  reminding  that  products  in  the  ICT  sector  develop  very  fast  and  could 
require  frequent  updates.  CECED  suggested  that  rescaling  of  energy  labels  that  had  taken 
place in Australia and Korea involved changes to the label design. For consumers, changing 
only  the  scale  of  the  label  is  less  disturbing  than  changing  the  whole  label.  All  necessary 
efforts should be made to reduce the burden of the label for those involved in the process, e.g., 
the  label  must  be  translated  to  the  languages  of  the  27+7  European  countries  in  which  it  is 
implemented.  

ANEC/BEUC  reiterated  that  the  shortcoming  of  the  energy  scheme  comes  from  its  lack  of 
flexibility  and  not  on  its  layout.  ANEC/BEUC  opposed  the  suggested  numerical  scale  and 
wanted  to  keep  the  A-G  scale,  without  A+  or  A++.  Consumers  are  used  to  A-G  and  they 
should not be confused with a numerical labelling scale. Any significant change to the label’s 
layout should be evaluated through extensive consumer research. Also, the existing label has 
been  copied  by  a  number  of  other  economies  and  Europe  should  not  introduce  a  change  to 
something  that  has  proven  to  work.  'Buy  A'  has  become  a  known  slogan  for  efficient 
appliances among consumers and it works also with colour blind people.  
EUROCOMMERCE  confirmed  that  some  of  their  members  had  reacted  positively  to  the 
proposed numerical scale but that they did not make a final decision on the preferred option. 
EUROCOMMERCE was concerned about the number of revisions of existing labels, as it is 
the  retailers  that  need  to  inform  customers.  They  would  prefer  that  appliances  in  the  stock 
should not be re-labelled, only new appliances. 

To facilitate the transfer from the old to the new label BEUC the label should include the date 
on  which  it  has  been  introduced.  DENMARK  suggested  a  transitional  label  but  BEUC  and 
ANEC objected, as the indication of the year of introduction  was considered  less  confusing 
than a third intermediary label. 

Environmental  NGOs  preferred  the  existing  A-G  label  and  requested  regular  updates  of 
implementing  Directives  every  five  years.  CECED  opposed  this  proposal  and  suggested  to 
update  labelling  scales  depending  on  the  type  of  product  and  its  specific  technological 
development  with  12  months  of  coexistence  of  the  old  and  new  label,  at  maximum. 
NETHERLANDS  opposed  the  proposed  12-month  coexistence  but  recognised  the  difficulty 
of  manufacturers  to  update  the  underlying  label.  Also  ANEC  and  BEUC  opposed  the  12-
month coexistence suggesting 6 months as a maximum. Requests were also made to update 
old labels on a given foreseen specific date. 

FRANCE found the numerical scale interesting but supports the A-G scale because it is well 
known  for  consumers.  GERMANY  recognised  that  there  is  no  interest  among  retailers  to 
downgrade their products in the event of an upgraded label. The NETHERLANDS requested 
that  the  revised  framework  directive  identify  responsibilities  in  the  event  of  rescaling  and 
specify the time for coexistence of different labels, which should be as short as possible. In 
the  case  of  Energy-Star,  manufacturers  are  responsible  for  implementing  the  requested 
changes  and  it  works.  UK  welcomed  the  work  undertaken  by  CECED  in  developing  a 
constructive proposal but strongly favoured the existing A-G scale until more information was 
available on the pros and cons of the numerical scale.  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The NETHERLANDS asked the Commission to investigate whether there would be a legally 
acceptable  procedure  which  would  allow  dynamic  and  speedy  decision  on  the  date  for 
updating the coloured background of the label in the “CECED” numerical scale.  

At  the  end  of  the  meeting,  it  was  agreed  that  a  working  group  be  established  in  order  to 
identify the advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of manufacturers, retailers, 
consumers  and  public  administrations  in  relation  to  different  labelling  scales  and  design. 
Proposals for participation in the working group could be made to the Commission until 22 
February, at latest.  

End of meeting.  

Annex 1: List of participants 

EU Member States 

Austria, Ministry of Economics and Labour 
Belgium 
Bulgaria, Ministry of Economy and Energy 
Denmark, Danish Energy Authority 
Estonia, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications 
Finland, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Employment and Economy 
France, Ministère charge de l'énergie and Ademe 
Germany, Ministry for the Environment, Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, 
Dena, Fraunhofer ISI 
Italy, ENEA 
Lithuania, Energy Agency 
Luxembourg, Service de l'Energie de l'Etat 
Netherlands, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Senter-Novem 
Poland, Ministry of Economy 
Slovak Republic,  
Slovenia, Ministry of Environment  
Sweden, Swedish Energy Agency 
United Kingdom, Defra and Market Transformation Programme 

EFTA Member Countries: Norway, Ministry of Energy 

Environmental NGOs and Consumer Associations 
ANEC, The European Consumer Voice in Standardisation 
BEUC, The European Consumer's Organsiation 
ECEEE, European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 
ECOS, representing WWF, EEB, Friends of Earth, Birdlife International, …  
Inforse-Europe, International Network for Sustainable Energy 

Industry and Retailers 
CECED, European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers 
CELMA, Federation of National Manufacturers Associations for Luminaires and 
Electrotechnical Components for Luminaires in the European Union 
EHI, European Heating Industry 
EICTA, European Digital Technology Industry 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ELC, European Lighting Industry 
EPEE, European Partnership for Energy and Environment 
EuroAce, The European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings 
Eurocommerce, Association of retail, wholesale and international trade sectors in Europe 
Marcogaz, Technical Association of the Natural Gas Industry 
ORGALIME, The European Engineering Industries Association representing the interests of 
the Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic, Metalworking & Metal Articles Industries 
ETRMA, European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers’ Association 

European Commission: TREN,  ENV, ENTR  

88