Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Date: 2023-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Subjects: air conditioning, application of EU law, consumer information, ecodesign, electrical equipment, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, market approval, technical specification

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.7.2023 
SEC(2024) 198 final 

REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION 

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) …/… 

implementing directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
with regard to ecodesign requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric 
input power between 125 W and 500 kW and repealing Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 327/2011 

{C(2024) 4427 final} 
{SWD(2024) 155 final} 
{SWD(2024) 156 final } 

 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Brussels, 06/11/2019 
SG.A2/UM 

Opinion 

Title: Impact assessment / Ecodesign requirements: Industrial fans 

Overall 2nd opinion: POSITIVE  

(A) Policy context 

An Ecodesign  Directive  from 2009  provides  a  framework to set  EU  design  requirements 
for  energy-using  products.  Its  aims  are  to  save  energy,  reduce  waste  and  promote 
recycling, among other things.  

This impact assessment looks at the energy efficiency of industrial fans. These feature in 
many  applications,  e.g.  industrial  processes  as  well  as  heating  and  cooling  equipment  in 
buildings. Industrial fans reportedly account for 10% of the EU's electricity consumption.   

Commission  Regulation  327/2011  sets  minimum  energy  efficiency  requirements  and 
mandatory information requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input power 
between  125  W  and  500  kW.  Although  this  range  encompasses  10%  of  all  fans,  it 
represents  80%  of  the  energy  consumption  of  fans.  Many  smaller  fans  are  Ecodesign 
regulated  with  other  products.  Some  are  not  regulated  because  costs  of  regulating  would 
exceed  benefits.  For  larger  fans,  end  users’  energy  awareness  is  high.  This  should 
encourage energy-efficient solutions.  

While broadly on track to save the expected 53 TWH/yr in electricity in 2030, further 
energy savings seem possible due to technological progress. The Regulation has also run 
into a number of problems related to scope, definitions and calculation methods. It does not 
address environmental and resource efficiency aspects linked to the circular economy. 

(B) Summary of findings 

The  Board  acknowledges  significant  revisions  to  the  report  that  respond  to  the 
Board’s  earlier  concerns.  The  Board  gives  a  positive  opinion.  The  Board  also 
considers  that  the  report  should  further  improve  with  respect  to  the  following  key 
aspects: 

(1) The problem analysis is not complete. In particular, the justification for including 

large fans remains partial. 

(2) The  report  does  not  sufficiently  discuss  how  cascading  and  different  testing 

methods add to administrative burdens.  

  ________________________________   
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version. 

European Commission, B-1049 Brussels - Belgium. Office: BERL 02/352. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu 

 
 
 
 
 
(3) The report does not adequately combine its analysis of ecodesign and the circular 

economy. 

(C) What to improve 

(1) The justification for  including large fans  in the ecodesign  programme rests  on strong 
assumptions  about  user  behaviour.  The  report  could  clarify  that  the  problem  analysis  is 
valid even if buyers are not myopic. Minimising the costs of using industrial fans may lead 
buyers  to  purchase  fans  that  have  neither  the  highest  energy  efficiency  nor  the  lowest 
energy  input  per  hour.  Sunk  costs  of  past  investments,  higher  investment  costs  for  new 
models with modest energy savings, or expectations of fast technical obsolence of current 
supplies  could  also  result  in  market  inertia.  All  these  arguments  can  justify  measures  to 
accelerate the replacement of industrial fans because users do not account for the external 
benefits of energy efficiency. The revised report could better integrate the new evidence on 
user behaviour reported in Annex 16 into the problem section. This section could also be 
better linked to the main findings of the review.    

(2)  The  revised  report  better  justifies  the  cascading  of  ecodesign  regulations.  It  defends 
cascading as an established practice and discusses the risks of its removal. The report could 
however expand on the administrative costs of multiple regulations and how these could be 
reduced. It should better report the related stakeholder views. 

(3) The analysis of circular economy elements remains rudimentary. Stakeholder views are 
only  presented  for  spare  parts.  The  report  could  elaborate  on  the  trade-off  between  eco-
design measures that aim at rapid replacement to adopt energy-saving innovations and the 
circular economy framework that aims at prolonging equipment lifespans.  

(4) The report could clarify whether testing methods are proportionate  and lead to robust 
energy  saving  estimates.  A  clearer  analysis  would  strengthen  the  argument  for  future 
updates of the regulation.  

(5) The Board takes note of the rich quantification of the various costs and benefits of the 
preferred option(s). More detail on the consequences of cascading and the different testing 
methods would further improve the quantification of administrative burdens. 

The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative, 
as summarised in the attached quantification tables. 

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG. 

(D) Conclusion 

The DG may proceed. 

The DG should take into account the recommendations of the Board before launching 
the interservice consultation. 

If  there  are  any  changes  in  the  choice  or  design  of  the  preferred  option  in  the  final 
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification 
tables to reflect this. 

Full title 

Impact assessment on ecodesign measures for industrial fans 

2 

 
 
 
Reference number 

2016/ENER/035 

Submission date 

8 July 2019 

Date of RSB meeting 

Written procedure 

3 

 
 
 
ANNEX:  Quantification  tables  extracted  from  the  draft  impact  assessment  report 
submitted to the Board 

The  following  tables  contain  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  initiative  on 
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above. 

If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content 
of  these  tables  may  be  different  from  those  in  the  final  version  of  the  impact  assessment 
report, as published by the Commission. 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 
Comments 

Amount 

Description 

Direct benefits 

Reduced energy 
consumption  

8.4 TWh per year in 2030. 
13.6 TWh per year in 2040 

Reduced 
environmental 
impact (less GHG 
emissions) 

Lower energy 
bills for 
consumers using 
fans (products 
with fans) 

Increased 
turnover in 
industry and trade 

2.9 Mt CO2-eq per year in 2030 
4.1 Mt CO2-eq per year in 2040 

Overall savings of 0.6 billion € per 
year in 2030; € 1.3 billion in 2040. 

500 million € per year in 2030.  

Increased 
employment 

4200 additional jobs in 2030.  

Indirect benefits 

The energy consumption of fans 
sold in the EU will be reduced, 
therefore the overall energy 
consumption in the EU will 
decrease accordingly. 

The reduced energy consumption 
will result in less GHG 
emissions.  

Consumers will experience lower 
electricity consumption due to the 
reduced fans energy losses and 
will thereby pay reduced 
electricity bills (which 
compensate the cost of more 
expensive fans shown in the next 
table).  

Manufacturer, traders, installers 
will benefit due to the increased 
price of more efficient fans.  

Jobs will be created to handle the 
additional work of adapting and 
testing the fans and 
manufacturing more efficient 
fans etc. 

•  Clearer  Regulation  will  facilitate  compliance  for  businesses  as  well  as  market 

surveillance. 

•  The spare parts exemption will allow reducing repair costs of product containing 
fans placed on the market before the entry into force of the Regulation, or avoids 
their early scrapping if they cannot be repaired.  

•  The marking of plastic parts in fans will allow increasing plastic recycling rates. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off 

Recurrent 

Administrati
ons 

One-
off 

Rec
urre
nt 

Review of 
energy 
efficiency 
requirement 

Direct 
costs 

500 
million € 

Cost of 
adapting 
and testing 
the fans 

Cost of 
manufacturing 
more efficient 
fans etc. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Brussels,  
Ares(2018) 

Opinion 

Title: Impact Assessment / Ecodesign requirements: Industrial fans 

Overall opinion: NEGATIVE 

(A) Context  

An Ecodesign  Directive  from 2009  provides  a  framework to set  EU  design  requirements 
for  energy-using  products.  Its  aims  are  to  save  energy,  reduce  waste  and  promote 
recycling, among other things. 

This impact assessment looks at the energy efficiency of industrial fans. These feature in 
many  applications,  e.g.  industrial  processes  as  well  as  heating  and  cooling  equipment  in 
buildings. Industrial fans reportedly account for 10% of the EU's electricity consumption.  

Commission  Regulation  327/2011  sets  minimum  energy  efficiency  requirements  and 
mandatory information requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input power 
between  125  W  and  500  kW.  Although  this  range  encompasses  10%  of  all  fans,  it 
represents  80%  of  the  energy  consumption  of  fans.  Many  smaller  fans  are  Ecodesign-
regulated  with  other  products.  Some  are  not  regulated  because  costs  of  regulating  would 
exceed  benefits.  For  larger  fans,  end  users’  energy  awareness  is  high.  This  should 
encourage energy-efficient solutions. 

While  broadly  on  track  to  save  the  expected  53  TWH/yr  in  electricity  in  2030,  further 
energy savings seem possible due to technological progress. The Regulation has also run 
into a number of problems related to scope, definitions and calculation methods. It does not 
address environmental and resource efficiency aspects linked to the circular economy. 

(B) Main considerations  

The Board notes scope for significant energy savings from industrial fans.  

However, the Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains important 
shortcomings that need to be addressed particularly with respect to the following key 
aspects:  

(1) The report does not justify market failure and the need for intervening in a B2B 
market. In particular for large fans, the existence of myopic behaviour and split 
incentives  does not seem  likely. The efficiency gains of regulating large fans are, 
therefore,  not  sufficiently  substantiated.  As  a  consequence,  it  is  not  evident  that 
the preferred option is more cost-effective than the option without big fans. 

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 6/29. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu 

 
 
 
 
(2) The  report  does  not  explain  well  the  consequences  of  cascading  regulations  and 
does  not  sufficiently  identify  potential  problems  with  multiple  regulations  of 
products with integrated fans.  

(C) Further considerations and adjustment requirements 

(1)  The  report  is  addressing  a  professional  market  for  industrial  fans.  There  is  thus  a 
genuine  need  for  supporting  the  intervention  with  solid  evidence  that  the  market  is  not 
behaving  rationally.  Myopic  behaviour  and  split  incentives  may  –  as  explained  –  be 
characterising  market  segments,  where  the  end-user  is  a  small  enterprise  or  where  the 
industrial fan is integrated into other products. However, for large industrial self-standing 
fans,  where  energy  costs  largely  outweigh  the  acquisition  costs,  it  is  not  clear  why  large 
professional actors would not act rationally by minimising energy costs. The report should, 
therefore,  present  evidence  that  additional  energy  savings  for  large  fans  are  possible 
through regulation. It should also justify the size of these potential savings (7-10%). In case 
of doubt, it could perform a sensitivity analysis on this assumption. It should also integrate 
possible cost differences for testing the energy efficiency of large fans in the analysis. The 
revised analysis of costs and benefits of regulating large fans could lead to more nuanced 
conclusions on what is the preferred option. 

(2) Cascading regulations of motors, fans and end products with integrated fans introduce 
an accounting  problem  in the  impact assessment.  The  report appropriately  excludes those 
energy  savings  that  would  be  realised  also  without  the  regulation  of  fans  (estimated  at 
50%) from the  benefits to  avoid double counting. However, the  costs associated with the 
fans  regulation  should  be  fully  counted  as  these  are  additional  to  the  costs  of  the  other 
regulations. Moreover, the report should better explain why in this specific case and more 
generally  it  is  preferable  to  regulate  both  components  (such  as  fans  and  motors)  and  end 
products, instead of just regulating the end product.  

(3) The description of policy options needs to better reflect how they relate to the technical 
analysis and the consultations with industry  and stakeholders. The choice of the common 
provisions  and  of  the  exemptions  should  also  be  better  justified.  The  report  should  be 
transparent about how the consultation process led to the policy options. It should clarify in 
how  far  it  considered  further  alternatives  for  the  policy  options  and  why  they  were 
discarded. In particular, it should explain why it did not consider a more ambitious energy-
saving option. The  report should explain how stakeholders think  about the policy options 
and  how  large  is  the  consensus  on  the  retained  policy  option.  The  report  should  explain 
how it accommodates diverging views amongst stakeholders, for example on the request to 
introduce  information  requirements  on  rare  earth  materials  for  fans  using  motors  with 
permanent magnets. The report should also shed light on the consultations that took place 
between  2015  and  today,  and  how  the  policy  options  take  account  of  technological 
developments since 2015.  

(4) The report does not sufficiently provide a link between the evaluation and the problem 
analysis. The evaluation should be a better basis for drawing conclusions on the problems 
identified.  Nor  do  the  evaluation  results  show  the  relevance  and  the  added  value  of  the 
Regulation. 

(5)  The  inclusion  of  circular  economy  objectives  in  the  report  should  happen  more 
consistently  and  be  better  argued.  The  problem  description  should  clarify  which  issues 
linked to the circular economy are real problems. The report should also justify why certain 

2 

 
 
circular  economy  options are put forward and  not  others.  It  should also consider whether 
several  options  can  be  put  forward  and  analysed.  Here  again,  the  report  should  better 
present  the  views  of  stakeholders.  In  particular,  the  report  should  be  clearer  on  the 
consultation of local stakeholders regarding exploration and extraction of rare earths. 

Some more technical comments have been transmitted directly to the author DG. 

(D) RSB scrutiny process  

The  lead  DG  shall  ensure  that  the  report  is  revised  in  accordance  with  the  above-
mentioned requirements and resubmitted to the Board for its final opinion. 

Full title 

Impact assessment accompanying the Commission Regulation 
implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 
Parliament and the Council with regard to eco-design 
requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input 
power between 125 W and 500 kW 

Reference number 

2016/ENER/035 

Date of RSB meeting 

27/06/2018 

3