Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Table of Contents

1.
   Introduction: Political and legal context……………………….

1.1.Benefits of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling

1.2.Legal framework

1.3.Legal context of the reviews

1.4.Political Context

1.5.Need to act

2.Problem definition

2.1.Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements

2.2.Problem 2: Outdated scope

2.3.Problem 3: Poor ‘Circular Economy’ performance

2.4.General market failures

2.5.Who is affected?

2.5.1.Manufacturers and retailers

2.5.2.Repair-reuse sector

2.5.3.Recyclers and waste disposal industry

2.5.4.Consumers

2.5.5.Society as a whole

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

3.2.Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

4.Policy Objectives: what is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

4.2.Specific Objectives

5.What are the available Policy Options?

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.2.Description of the policy options

5.2.1.Option 1 – Baseline

5.2.2.Option 2 – ECO

5.2.3.Option 3 - Ambitious

5.2.4.Option 4 - Lenient

5.3.Option discarded at an early stage: Voluntary agreement by the industry

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.Methodology and key assumptions

6.2.Environmental Impact

6.2.1.Electricity savings

6.2.2.Greenhouse Gas Emissions

6.2.3.Circular Economy perspective

6.3.Business impacts

6.3.1.Business revenue

6.3.2.Innovation, Research and Development, Competitiveness and Trade

6.3.3.Compliance costs

6.3.4.Intellectual property rights

6.3.5.Stranded investments

6.4.Consumer expenditure

6.4.1.Sensitivity analysis

6.5.Administrative burden

6.6.Social Impact

6.6.1.Affordability

6.6.2.Health, Safety and Functionality Aspects

6.6.3.Employment

6.6.4.SMEs

7.How do the options compare?

7.1.Summary of the impacts

7.2.Market Surveillance

7.3.Assessment in view of Article 15(5)

7.4.Assessment in view of the objectives

8.Preferred option

8.1.Preferred option – Why?

8.2.REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Table of Content of the ANNEXES

Annex 1Procedural informationA 1

Annex 2:Stakeholder consultationA 9

Annex 3:Who is affected and howA 18

Annex 4:Analytical model usedA 20

Annex 5:Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation ForumsA 28

Annex 6:The market of electronic displaysA 58

Annex 7:The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling FrameworkA 75

Annex 8:Existing Policies, Legislation and Standards on electronic displaysA 79

Annex 9:Evaluation of current regulations (REFIT)A 90

Annex 10:IAB opinion of 4 September 2013 & adjustments madeA 94

Annex 11:Administrative burdenA 96

Annex 12:Consumer understanding of the energy label (displays)A 100

Annex 13:Background: Energy databases and testingA 102

Annex 14:Background: Energy Flows, Luminance, HDRA 113

Annex 15:Background: Circular economy and other non-energy impacts.0A 130

Annex 16:Acronyms & conversion tableA 140

Annex 17:ReferencesA 143

  

This report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

This impact assessment relates to the review of Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009
[1](#footnote1)
 (Ecodesign) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 (Energy Label)
[2](#footnote2)
 on televisions and television monitors.

1.1.Benefits of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling

Ecodesign and energy labelling are recognised globally as one of the most effective policy tools in the area of energy efficiency. It is central to making Europe more energy efficient, contributing in particular to the ‘Energy Union Framework Strategy’
[3](#footnote3)
, and to the priority of a ‘Deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base’
[4](#footnote4)
. Firstly, this legislative framework pushes industry to improve the energy efficiency of products and removes the worst-performing ones from the market. Secondly, it helps consumers and companies to reduce their energy bills. In the industrial and services sectors, this results in support to competitiveness and innovation. Thirdly, it ensures that manufacturers and importers responsible for placing products on the European Union (EU) market only have to comply with a single set of rules.

It is estimated that by 2020, ecodesign and energy labelling regulations will deliver around 175 Mtoe (i.e. about 2035 TWh) of energy savings per year in primary energy, roughly equivalent to Italy's energy consumption in 2010, close to half the EU 20 % energy efficiency target by 2020 and about 11 % of the expected EU primary energy consumption in 2020
[5](#footnote5)
.

Moreover, the average household saves about € 500 annually on its energy bills by 2020, whilst for industry, service and wholesale and retail sectors it will result in € 55 billion per year of extra revenue.

This legislative framework benefits from a broad support from innovative European industries, consumers, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and Member States (MSs), because of its positive effects on innovation, increased information for consumers and lower costs, as well as environmental benefits.

Televisions have been subject to EU minimum energy efficiency requirements since 2009 and to energy labelling measures since 2010. Even before 2009, the energy consumption and carbon emissions per unit of viewing area reduced by more than 60 % compared to business as usual (BAU) due to technological developments, and likely also in anticipation of the Regulations.

However, at the same time the size of televisions screens increased, as did the number of sales with a peak in 2010. These trends were not fully foreseen in the preparatory study and impact assessment in 2007, because the available sales and stock data was poor and information from industry was not forthcoming at that time
[6](#footnote6)
.

As a result, in 2017 the energy consumption of the installed television stock was around 10 TWh (around 13% of the total energy consumption of TVs) lower than what was expected in 2007, as can be seen in Figure 1. This was driven by both technological progress and regulatory pressure around the world.

The increase of the energy consumption estimated to start around 2024 is partly because the current regulations (which in the BAU scenario would not be revised) would lose their effect on the market. Moreover, efficiency improvement is expected to slow down because the technologies that thus far have caused the large efficiency improvements are nearing their limits and further improvements would require major investments (see also section 5.2.1). More details about the past and future market trends can be found in Annexes 4, 6 and 14.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47002.jpg)

Figure 1: Electricity consumption of televisions 1990-2025, according to 2007 impact assessment (based on best data 2007) and real 2017 data as assessed in this study.

It has to be noted that it is very difficult to estimate to which extent the improvements are driven by autonomous technology progress, by competition or by regulatory pressure. However, we consistently see that product sectors regulated under ecodesign and energy labelling anticipate upcoming regulations. This was most obvious with televisions after the introduction of the first regulations in 2011: only after a few months of the rules starting to apply, many manufacturers came forward with models in the higher classes of the label. This is to be expected as companies need to plan their product development investment well in advance, in particular if new technologies are needed to meet requirements or move to the higher energy classes
[7](#footnote7)
. If companies wait with such investment decisions until the requirements enter into force, they run the risk of being ‘behind the curve’ of sector-wide improvements and will lose market share
[8](#footnote8)
.

The BAU assumes that without continued regulatory pressure further major efficiency gains will not materialise autonomously, and that with the increasing volume of displays and the introduction of new features that tend to be more energy consuming, total energy consumption will go up.

1.2.Legal framework

Lowering the demand for energy by ‘putting energy efficiency first’ is one of the five main objectives of the Energy Union strategy. In 2015, Member States in the Council confirmed the imperative need to reach the 20% energy efficiency target for 2020. In November 2016, the Commission proposed to further strengthen this beyond 2020 with a 30% EU energy efficiency target for 2030
[9](#footnote9)
. In the EU, the Ecodesign framework Directive
[10](#footnote10)
 sets a framework requiring manufacturers of energy-related products to improve the environmental performance of their products by meeting minimum energy efficiency requirements, as well as other environmental criteria such as water consumption, emission levels or minimum durability of certain components before they can place their products on the market.

The Energy Labelling framework Regulation
[11](#footnote11)
 complements Ecodesign by enabling end-consumers to identify the better-performing energy-related products, via the well-known A-G/green-to-red scale. The Regulation sets out the general rules for rescaling the existing A+ to A+++ labels:

·Class A shall be empty at the moment of introduction of the label, and the estimated time within which a majority of the models falls into that class is at least 10 years;

·Where technology is expected to develop more rapidly, as in electronic equipment sectors such as displays, classes A and B shall be empty when introducing the label;

·Moreover, the A to G steps of the classification shall correspond to significant energy and cost savings and appropriate product differentiation from the customer’s perspective.

In general, the boundaries of the label scale are defined by the performance of products on the market incorporating ‘Best Available Technology’ (BAT) and the minimum requirement under ecodesign for those products. Subsequently, the bandwidth of the classes is determined to keep the same effort to move from one class to the next one. For specific product groups this may however be different to take into account appropriate product differentiation.

The BAT is determined following the MEErP methodology, and is based on purely technical grounds, i.e. the product on the market with the lowest environmental impact, while ensuring that other functional requirements (e.g. performance, quality, durability) are equivalent to the base case.

The energy label is recognised and used by 85% of Europeans
[12](#footnote12)
.

The legislative framework builds upon the combined effect of the two aforementioned pieces of legislation. See figure 2 for a visualisation of this effect.

The Ecodesign framework Directive and the Energy Labelling framework Regulation are implemented through implementing and delegated Regulations that cover specific energy-related products representing a significant volume of sales (more than 200 000 units a year), having a significant environmental impact within the EU and representing a significant energy improvement potential without increasing the cost excessively.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47003.jpg)

Figure 2: Effect of Ecodesign alone and when combined with Energy Labelling

As an alternative to the mandatory ecodesign requirements, voluntary agreements or other self-regulation measures can be presented by the industry, see also Article 17 of the Ecodesign Framework Directive. If certain criteria are met the Commission formally recognises these voluntary agreements
[13](#footnote13)
. The benefits are intended to be a quicker and more cost-effective implementation, which can be more flexible and easier to adapt to technological developments and market sensitivities.

Under this framework, televisions and television monitors
[14](#footnote14)
 are regulated by Commission Ecodesign Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 and Commission Delegated Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010.

The EU Ecolabelling Regulation (Regulation (EC) 66/2010
[15](#footnote15)
) complements ecodesign and energy labelling. It is a voluntary scheme that awards products with the best environmental performance throughout their lifecycle. Products that fulfil the criteria can bear the EU ecolabel. Televisions and television monitors are covered by the EU Ecolabel under Commission Decision 2009/300/EC and follow-up acts
[16](#footnote16)
. The Ecolabel has some stricter energy efficiency requirements and addresses other environmental issues
[17](#footnote17)
.

Displays, including computer monitors and signage displays, were included in Annex C of the EU-US Energy Star agreement, which expired on 20 February 2018
[18](#footnote18)
. The agreement did not allow the inclusion of products in its Annex C if such products would be covered by energy labelling. Hence, televisions were never included in the Agreement.

As regards waste management, article 4 of the Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) framework Directive (which covers televisions and displays) explicitly states that Ecodesign requirements should be laid down to facilitate the re-use, dismantling and recovery of WEEE, its components and materials, by addressing such issues during the design phase.

Finally, under article 6 of the Energy Efficiency Directive, Member States shall ensure that central governments purchase only products, services and buildings with high energy-efficiency performance
[19](#footnote19)
. In this context, computer monitors and signage displays are also part of the Commission’s Green Public Procurement (GPP) guidelines
[20](#footnote20)
,
[21](#footnote21)
, which are developed to facilitate the inclusion of green requirements in public tender documents.

A more detailed overview of existing policies, legislation and standards covering televisions and computer monitors is given in Annex 8.

1.3.Legal context of the reviews

Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 642/2009 requires the Regulation to be reviewed within 3 years after entry into force (i.e. by September 2012) in light of technological progress. Article 7 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 1062/2010 requires a review within 5 years (i.e. by December 2015).

The Ecodesign working plan 2016-2019
[22](#footnote22)
 also includes the review of both regulations, requiring in particular to examine how aspects relevant to the circular economy can be assessed and taken on board. This is in line with the Circular Economy Initiative
[23](#footnote23)
 , which concluded that product design is a key in achieving the goals, as it can have significant impacts across the product life cycle (e.g. in making a product more durable, easier to repair, reuse or recycle).

Finally, in August 2017, the new Energy Labelling framework Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 entered into force, repealing Directive 2010/30/EU
[24](#footnote24)
. Under the repealed Directive, energy labels were allowed to include A+ to A+++ classes to address the overpopulation of the top classes. Over time, due to technological development, also the A+ to A+++ class became overpopulated, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the labels significantly. To resolve this, the new framework regulation requires a rescaling of existing energy labels, back to the original A to G scale. Article 11 of the Energy Labelling framework Regulation lists 5 priority product groups for which new delegated acts with rescaled energy labels must be adopted 15 months after the entry onto force of the Regulation. Televisions are one of the priority product groups.

1.4.Political Context

Several new policy initiatives indicate the need for a broader scope for the revision than required by Article 7 of the current Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulation. The main ones are:

·the Energy Union Framework Strategy which calls for a sustainable, low-carbon and climate-friendly economy;

·the Paris Agreement
[25](#footnote25)
, which calls for a renewed effort in carbon emission abatement;

·the Circular Economy Initiative
[26](#footnote26)
, which amongst others stresses the need to include reparability, durability and recyclability in ecodesign;

·the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
[27](#footnote27)
, which aims at cost-effective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and indirectly affected by the energy consumption of the electricity-using products in the scope of ecodesign and energy labelling policies; and

·the Energy Security Strategy, which sets out a strategy to ensure a stable and abundant supply of energy.

1.5.Need to act 

The need to act is driven by the following main considerations:

Cost effective energy savings:

Manufacturers and consumers stand to benefit from the fact that there are still cost effective energy savings to be achieved in this product sector. By way of illustration, 
[Figure 3](#_Ref517434874)
 shows the past and expected future increase of total viewing surface area in 1990 (21 km2), 2010 (125 km2) and 2030 (496 km2). It also shows what would have happened in 2010 and 2030 if television energy efficiency had stayed at the 1990 level, and the effect of the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario. The figure anticipates the potential savings in 2030 with updated measures (ECO-scenario) for televisions only (i.e. not including other displays that are currently not covered by the Regulations in force).

 
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47004.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47005.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47006.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47007.jpg)

Figure 3: EU television screen area and energy use 1990-2010-2030 (source: VHK for the EC, 2017)

Other policies/political imperatives:

Several other policies and political priorities require the revisions to look beyond the technical revisions mentioned in the review article of the existing regulations, e.g.:

·renewed effort in carbon emission abatement through the Paris climate agreement;

·the Commission’s Circular Economy policy;

·the Better Regulation policy aiming at more efficient and effective legislation;

·the need to address possible circumvention of testing standards;

·renewed energy efficiency targets.

Rescaling of energy labels

The new Energy Labelling framework Regulation requires the Commission to rescale the existing labels for five priority product groups, including televisions, 15 months after the entry into force of the Regulation, to remove the A+ to A+++ classes.

More generally, the filling up of the top classes means that the label is no longer effective. If there is still a significant difference in energy efficiency of products remaining on the market, a label will still bring added value in terms of guiding consumers to more efficient products.

In particular for televisions, over the past 5 years, the energy label has been successful in driving the market, by pulling consumer choice towards the highest classes and incentivising manufactures to compete by having a large offer of products in the top classes. As a result, in 2017 almost no televisions in classes below B were sold in the EU (
[Figure 4](#_Ref517460362)
) and the top 3 energy efficiency classes are now overpopulated in terms of sales

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47012.jpg)

Figure 4: EU television unit sales by EU Energy Label classes 2013-2017 (source VHK based on data from GfK).

This means the use of the label to help consumers to differentiate between the products on the market is lost. Moreover, the "A+", "A++" and "A+++" classes introduced by the Energy Labelling Framework Directive (Directive 2010/30/EU) have been shown to be less effective in persuading consumers to buy more efficient products than the A to G scale
[28](#footnote28)
. The television energy label was therefore included in the list of product groups to be rescaled as a priority under the Energy Labelling framework Regulation.

1.Problem definition

Televisions and other electronic displays constitute almost 3% of the European Union’s electricity consumption: in 2016, the electricity consumption of televisions was almost 80 TWh/yr
[29](#footnote29)
, up from 25 TWh/yr in 2005, close to the total electricity consumption of EU household refrigeration appliances (86 TWh/yr). This consumption is slowly decreasing due to progress in energy-saving technology but still has the largest share amongst all electronic household products and, without policy action, is expected to reach 50 TWh/yr in 2030. However, revised Ecodesign and Energy Label measures could reduce this to around 30 TWh/yr by 2030 (i.e. back to pre-1990 levels) without significant negative impacts, both on life-cycle costs and product functionality.

In addition, although their energy efficiency has been improving, this is not fast enough to compensate for the increase in energy use due to a growing number of displays per household
[30](#footnote30)
. New image compression techniques and increasing Internet bandwidth availability are also driving the shift from traditional broadcasting to video streaming "on demand" that, in turn, encourages individual watching thereby increasing the number of hours each display is in use. See Annex 6 for market details and projections.

2.1.Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements

The problem: The current ecodesign requirements for televisions and television monitors no longer capture cost-effective energy savings. Moreover, the current energy label no longer allows consumers to differentiate effectively between the appliances on the market and no longer provides information reflecting real-use patterns as shown by the review. Although the 2012 Ecodesign limit (3 W) was ambitious at the time, nowadays for LED LCD televisions and monitors a level of 1 W/dm² is typical.

Without an update of the eco-design and energy label measures, they will lose their effectiveness and the incentives for industry to design more efficient products will be lower.

Drivers of the problem

Problem driver 1: technological progress, outdated testing methods and circumvention

As outlined in the review, a number of quickly-developing technology and market changes occurred since the entry into force of the existing regulations on televisions, such as ever-larger screens, new backlighting technology
[31](#footnote31)
, increases in picture definition and contrast/colour gamut, in particular High Dynamic Range (HDR).

At the same time, the testing methodology used for setting minimum energy efficiency requirements under ecodesign and defining the efficiency classes on the energy label is based on the energy use of a television with "traditional" contrast/colour gamut control (known as Standard Dynamic Range or SDR)
[32](#footnote32)
. With the introduction of HDR, energy consumption can more than double. Premium televisions on the market from 2017 started offering this new feature
[33](#footnote33)
 that is progressively offered on less expensive models.

[Figure 5](#_Ref517460854)
 shows, for two television models on the EU market since 2017, how the energy consumption can differ when operating in HDR mode: the left graph shows for a specific model an energy use in HDR of 456 W versus 199 W in SDR (which is the only indication reflected in the label). The right graph shows how for another model with a more energy-efficient implementation of HDR, the energy use has a negligible increase (129 W in HDR versus 128 W in SDR).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47013.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47014.jpg)

Figure 5: Second-by-second power use of two display models (source STEP project, personal communication).

The current testing method was not designed to deal with this feature and, as a result, the actual energy use of some televisions is possibly considerably higher than what is indicated on the energy label. Hence, in situations where HDR images are displayed on a HDR-capable display, the label does not always correctly represent the energy efficiency and energy use, also leading to an impaired comparability of different models (see annex 14 for more details).

Moreover, independent testing has shown that some displays from some manufacturers abnormally decrease their power consumption in certain situations, such as during the energy consumption test
[34](#footnote34)
, raising suspicion of the use of so-called "defeat devices"
[35](#footnote35)
. Given the confidential nature of compliance control activities by market surveillance there is however no precise information on the size of the problem. Market surveillance authorities, and consumer and environmental NGOs have argued for improved test modalities and legislation provisions to better support enforcement and discourage circumvention.

The testing method also needs to be updated to include Auto Brightness Control, a new feature for adapting screen luminance to the ambient conditions, which can reduce power use up to 75% in specific circumstances whilst improving visual comfort.

Without an update of the measures, consumers' confidence in the energy label will decrease, as it will become less and less representative of the energy consumption and efficiency in real life conditions.

In addition, international standards are being developed for televisions, based on an update of the current testing loop
[36](#footnote36)
. Not including this new test in the ecodesign and energy labelling measures would result in double testing of televisions (i.e. according to the EU standard and other markets).

Problem Driver 2: Increasing display size, outdated calculation method

Manufacturers’ marketing pushes consumers towards bigger and bigger screens, with retailers encouraged to show only the biggest models, which have higher profit margins per unit sold. 
[Figure 6](#_Ref517373631)
 provides an overview of the market developments between 2015 and 2016 per display size, clearly showing the trend towards larger displays. Since 2005, the energy efficiency per unit of display surface area (i.e. Watts/dm²) started to go down, but by no means enough to compensate for the additional energy consumption due to the increased display size and higher number of displays.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47151.jpg)

Figure 6: TV display unit sales Europe by diagonal size, in inch, 2015-2016 (source: VHK on GfK POS, April 2017).

At the time the current Regulations were established, the average display size was slightly above 30 inches of diagonal, and the contribution of the different electronic components (which is fixed) and that of the screen (which is relative to size) to the energy consumption of the display was more balanced. Because of the commercial trend to ever-increasing screen sizes, the relative contribution of the screen to energy consumption is increasing.

The current energy label for televisions provides a certain advantage to the biggest displays. Indeed, the calculation method (based on power consumption linearly increasing with screen area) does not correctly capture the influence of the display size with respect to other electronic components (the power consumption of which is independent from the screen area). This results in an indication of efficiency that can mislead consumers. More details can be found in Annex 6.

2.2.Problem 2: Outdated scope

The problem: The outcome of the review shows that the current scope of both Ecodesign and Energy Labelling regulations is unclear, technology-prescriptive and creates uncertainty as to whether some products are in or out of the scope. This causes an unlevelled playing field for industry, and Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs) have difficulties to evaluate the scope and perform proper market surveillance. In addition, the current scope of both regulations does not cover an increasingly important share of devices on the market.

The current Regulations cover:

·Televisions; defined as products designed primarily for the display and reception of audio-visual signals; and

·television monitors; defined as products designed to display on an integrated screen a video signal from a variety of sources, including television broadcast signals.

Technological progress and convergence of different products increasingly blurred the line between television monitors and other display products such as computer monitors or even signage displays
[37](#footnote37)
. A functional overlap is now evident, with, e.g. the classic television no longer the only way for watching video content
[38](#footnote38)
 and, because of enhanced resolution levels now available, televisions are sometimes used as monitors for game consoles, although specific wide and curved monitors now exist for that. Already in 2012, most stakeholders agreed that the review of the television measures should be used to cover computer monitors and signage displays (see Annex 2 for details on the rationale of including these products in a revised television measure and Annex 5 for the position of stakeholders in the Consultation Forum of October 2012).

Moreover, new modular signage displays can be used to create video walls, and this market is moving from public spaces to premium domestic home theatre screens replacing projectors for domestic use (or even in public cinemas
[39](#footnote39)
, replacing projectors). Most of the features and components of signage displays are the same as for domestic televisions and monitors and these products are replacing older signage boards because of their flexibility. Technology progress in one sector drives other related ones
[40](#footnote40)
.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47016.jpg)

Figure 7: Share of electronic display surface per product group (EU 2020, source VHK)

[Figure 7](#_Ref517465424)
 shows the estimated area of electronic displays per ‘product group’. In combination with the energy consumption data (
[Figure 10](#_Ref514170952)
) it becomes evident that the currently limited market of signage displays will become relatively more important in terms of energy use in the coming years.

If computer monitors and signage displays currently not covered by the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations remain unregulated, significant energy savings would not be realised. Consequently, consumers would not benefit from reduced energy consumption (and therefore reduced electricity bills) of those products. Since these two product categories fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive, recycling targets of 80 % as of 2018 would be more difficult to reach
[41](#footnote41)
.

Moreover, signage displays are listed in the Commission’s 2016-2019 Ecodesign Working Plan to be taken up in the revision of the existing regulations for televisions.

Drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Outdated product definitions/unclear scope

Both regulations in force include in scope "televisions and television monitors". However, their definitions of "television monitor" based on the availability of certain input interfaces has become obsolete and inaccurate because of technology development, outdated terminology and because use patterns have changed significantly. This has resulted in legal uncertainty and there are recurring interpretation questions from market surveillance authorities and even court cases and litigation
[42](#footnote42)
 (See Annex 11 for more information).

Driver 2: New product types

The outcome of the review has shown that the increasing availability of relatively cheap electronic displays is driving the replacement of traditional signage media (e.g. paper billboards, split-flap boards, etc.) and provides new opportunities for displaying video content, typically for advertisements (see 
[Figure 8](#_Ref517377675)
). From an energy perspective, many of these signage displays are on all the time, using up to 2.5 times more power than a normal TV of the same size
[43](#footnote43)
. Moreover, they tend to be much larger.

At the same time, ‘professional’ signage displays are migrating into the consumer market (driven amongst others by miniaturisation of LED technology, commonly known as Crystal LED or MicroLED), for example by bringing "video wall" technology used in commercial settings to homes, with new premium products such as 150-inch home theatres. This new “domestic” use of these products broadens their traditional customer base from commercial entities to include households. Annex 6 includes some examples of new signage display markets and of technologies now emerging.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47017.jpg)

Figure 8: an electronic signage display in a hospital mimicking (sound included) a mechanical split-flap board.

2.3.Problem 3: Poor ‘Circular Economy’ performance

The problem: The existing ecodesign and energy labelling requirements for televisions focus on energy efficiency improvements as the most significant environmental impact during the life-cycle of electronic displays. However, since the introduction of these regulations, new policies on circular economy and other environmental aspects have been introduced and there is a need to address these issues increasingly through Ecodesign and, potentially, Energy Label measures. This was confirmed with the adoption of the current EU Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015, followed by the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019 in November 2016.

The traditional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) TVs and computer monitors had many environmental and health concerns, e.g. regarding phosphors, lead, large glass tubes, large high-voltage capacitors, heavy mass of casing materials, and in particular flame retardants in plastics. With the advent of the flat screen TV, although there were initially some issues with mercury in backlights and cadmium in nanomaterials, the total material input in producing displays has decreased by 80-90 %: new LED/LCD displays weigh only a fraction of the old CRT TV.

According to the latest Eurostat statistics for 2014, collected waste displays made up 83% of the weight of the consumer electronic products placed on the market and 79 % of that collected waste was recycled, with 2 % being recovered or re-used in another way.

 

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47018.jpg)

Figure 9: Estimated mass flow (in kt) of televisions sold and discarded (excluded packaging) over the 1990-2012 period with baseline projections for 2013-2030. (source: VHK. See Annex X)

As regards durability, a recent study for the German Environmental Protection Agency
[44](#footnote44)
, found that planned technical obsolescence is not common for electronic displays. Most people discard the old TV, in perfect working order, to buy a better/bigger model.

One issue that has been raised by stakeholders, is the use of standardised external power supplies (EPSs), which convert 230 Volt AC current into low voltage DC current. This would address the following concerns in terms of reparability, durability and recyclability:

·Repairing a broken, internal power supply requires a technician and frequently is not cost-effective, e.g. because it is integrated on the main electronic board and the replacement cost is comparable to a new display. A broken standardised external EPS can be replaced by any user at moderate/low cost;

·An standard EPS can have a lifetime longer than the main load product (e.g. a television) and can thus be used after the main load product is at its end of life;

·Flame retardants hinder recycling of plastics and can be toxic and ecotoxic (in particular halogenated flame retardants). The power supply is the only component where AC current is supplied. By removing the power source from the interior of an electronic display the need for using flame retardants in plastics is reduced
[45](#footnote45)
.

Finally, the WEEE Directive regulates the recycling of electronic displays. Article 8(2) of this Directive includes a list of materials that need to be collected separately during the recycling process, including LCD screens above 100 cm2 and plastics with brominated flame retardants, and ecodesign requirements can facilitate this by requiring those components to be easily removable. Moreover, Article 4 of the WEEE directive refers to the role of ecodesign to address upstream issues related to re-use, dismantling and recovery. Recycling and material recovery are important for this product group because of the presence of critical or precious raw materials (such as Au, Ag, Pd, In)
[46](#footnote46)
 and big plastic parts. Plastics recycling, mainly of the back-cover and the stand, is rendered more difficult because of the presence of halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) in some of the plastic parts. .

Although circular economy aspects were not specifically evaluated in quantitative terms, the need to examine options for better supporting circular economy objectives was articulated by stakeholders as early as 2012
[47](#footnote47)
.

Drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Glued and welded components

Typically, televisions and displays are not well designed for recycling. The WEEE Directive requires the removal, for separate treatment and before further processing such as shredding, of several electronic components usually contained in electronic displays
[48](#footnote48)
. Televisions and displays have many components, which cannot be easily detached because they are welded or glued, and trying to remove them can be dangerous or ineffective. The European Electronic and Electric Recyclers Association (EERA) reports
[49](#footnote49)
 almost every day a fire in recycling plants of one of its members, because e.g. lithium-ion batteries explode during extraction attempts or in shredding machinery.

Driver 2: Use of flame retardants

Electronic displays contain flame retardants (FR) as additives to plastic polymers, as well as synergists such as Antimony Tri-Oxide (ATO). FRs were introduced in old CRT displays, where high voltages were involved
[50](#footnote50)
. Safety standards required flame retardancy in the case a candle on top of those old TVs was reversed. It is estimated that currently around 20 kt of HFRs and ATOs is used in the production of electronic displays sold in the EU
[51](#footnote51)
.

EFRA (2014) estimated that only 12% of the plastics in a display is recycled
[52](#footnote52)
. It should be noted that most of these plastics are currently either incinerated or landfilled, as it is not possible with most recycling technologies to separate out these plastics with sufficient quality. However, recent research has demonstrated that it is technically possible to sort these plastics after manual disassembly e.g. by means of spectroscopic analysis. It has also been demonstrated that these plastics can be recycled to produce products with the same properties
[53](#footnote53)
.

Halogenated flame retardants (HFR), used in plastics of electronic displays, are a low-cost solution to obtain the high flame retardancy required by certain standards (i.e. UL94 class V1 or higher) but appear to hinder recycling
[54](#footnote54)
. The necessity to use HFRs is expected to diminish, because modern displays do not involve high voltages, with some using only low voltage DC current (when the power supply is external). As a result, the so-called ‘candle test’ (which entails an open flame being applied to the back cover of the television over a prolonged period without the back cover actually catching fire) is no longer required. It was prescribed in EN 60065:2002/A11:2008, a harmonised standard under the Low Voltage Directive (LVD). However, this standard was superseded by EN 60065:2014, which will in turn be superseded by the harmonised standard EN 62386-1:2014 that no longer requires this ‘candle test’.
[55](#footnote55)
 

Plastics with HFR additives, particularly bromine-based compounds (BFR), constitute a main bottleneck in reaching the required WEEE recycling rates as they pollute otherwise recyclable polymers that therefore have to be incinerated, thereby lowering recycling yields. In fact, the RoHS Directive
[56](#footnote56)
 restricts the use of specific HFR
[57](#footnote57)
, but a number of other HFR compounds are still allowed and more could be created.

For electronic and electric products, RoHS legislation has clearly defined limit values for the presence of any restricted substance such as BFRs and under the WEEE Directive plastics need to be treated in specialised plants, capable of separating e.g. BFR containing plastics
[58](#footnote58)
, with consequent additional costs
[59](#footnote59)
.

Mechanical separation of polymers containing HFRs from non-HFR polymers is feasible
[60](#footnote60)
, however with state-of-the-art technologies it is currently not economically sustainable to separate plastics containing still allowed substances from those restricted by the RoHS Directive. Hence, recyclers opt for incineration of any plastic with HFRs
[61](#footnote61)
. Moreover, restricted HFR additives have serious toxicity and ecotoxicity
[62](#footnote62)
 issues, constituting a major threat to the health of workers in recycling plants during end-of-life processing
[63](#footnote63)
 (see Annex 15 for more details).

Banning of all flame retardants, particularly HFRs, is consistently requested by environmental NGOs
[64](#footnote64)
 that have been also fighting the candle test for several years, claiming that the fire safety measures are disproportionate, based on outdated fire statistics and related to old TV technologies (CRT). The recycling industry is also in favour of completely banning
[65](#footnote65)
 the use of at least halogenated flame retardants
[66](#footnote66)
.

Alternative solutions exist
[67](#footnote67)
, at least for the enclosure, that have been already in use for years by major manufacturers
[68](#footnote68)
, such as:

·using polycarbonate PC/ABS
[69](#footnote69)
 blends and HIPS/PPE blends that can be flame-retarded using phosphorus solutions
[70](#footnote70)
;

·providing design solutions avoiding any FR such as shields between circuit boards and the enclosure, or increasing the separating space; or

·using non-flammable materials.

The Ecolabel for televisions
[71](#footnote71)
 requires that plastic parts shall not contain a number of flame retardant substances.

 

As some safety standards still require a certain level of flame retardancy also for the enclosure, a complete elimination of all flame retardants, as recyclers crave, appears still difficult at this stage
[72](#footnote72)
. More details are given in Annex 15.

Driver 3: Spare parts availability

Currently no measures exist which regulate the availability of spare parts, or software and firmware updates, which has a direct impact on the durability of products.

The review showed that the replacement rate (a proxy for service life) of TVs reduced from 9-11 years in the 1990s to 5-6 years between 2003 and 2010, mostly due to the replacement of analogue, bulky CRT displays but is now again rising to 8-9 years (see Annex 6). Replacement is mostly driven by natural product obsolescence; i.e. people buy a new display because of functional requirements (i.e. size, resolution), but rarely because the display is broken. In the case of signage displays, which are often always on, replacement is driven by the degraded picture quality, often within 5 years.

Reparability of TVs is under investigation in a new study by JRC
[73](#footnote73)
 and preliminary findings indicate that remote controls, external power supplies (EPS) and internal power boards are the components most likely to fail or break.

2.4.General market failures

In addition to the product specific problem drivers described in the previous sections, some general market failures have been identified:

Myopic behaviour - Without up to date energy efficiency requirements and energy labels, economic actors (both business and private) will not choose the product that is the most cost-effective over the product's life-time. This is because economic actors are limited by the information they have, their knowledge about products, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.

Split incentives – Without up to date energy efficiency requirements, the guarantee that the products will be cost-effective over their life-time is lost. This is especially important for a certain groups of consumers, in particular those in a landlord-tenant situations, where the landlord buys the appliance and the tenant pays the energy bill, which for this product group is particularly relevant for signage displays.

Price reflection – The price of the products does not reflect the real environmental costs to society in terms of circular economy. Hence, without setting requirements that will improve circular economy aspects of the product, the different actors in the life cycle of the appliance will not be incentivised to improve the circular economy aspects of the appliance.

2.5.Who is affected? 

All market actors, consumers and society in general are affected by the problems.

2.5.1.Manufacturers and retailers

For manufacturers and retailers, the energy label is one of the main market drivers and an important quality feature. The energy label allows industry to distinguish itself based on quality and innovation rather than solely on price.

Outdated energy efficiency requirements mean that new, innovative features are no longer properly reflected on the label, and manufacturers are thereby less able to distinguish their products based on quality and innovation rather than solely on price.

The overall energy use (and efficiency) of a display is mostly dependent on the panels (the "screen"). The electronic displays sold in the EU all use panels made in Asia. Jobs in this sector in the EU are mainly in assembly and distribution centres and in utilities supplying casings, non-video components and subassemblies
[74](#footnote74)
.

It is estimated that a few thousand jobs (2000-4000) in the EU are involved. SMEs in this sector, i.e. companies with less than 250 employees, could not be found. Most companies involved in electronic display manufacturing/assembly/design are represented by DigitalEurope
[75](#footnote75)
.

2.5.2.Repair-reuse sector 

Statistics on repair shops are not detailed enough to give an exact estimate of the number of enterprises involved in TV and monitor repair. Based on their relative turnover it is estimated that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 repair jobs for TVs and monitors in the EU. More than 80-90 % of these jobs are in SME enterprises, most of them probably also in retail
[76](#footnote76)
. Lack of repair information hinders the development of the repair-reuse sector.

2.5.3.Recyclers and waste disposal industry

For recyclers, design requirements that facilitate the separate collection of the materials listed in Article 8(2) of the WEEE Directive
[77](#footnote77)
 would reduce the time needed to disassemble and process an electronic display. Workers in the recycling industry would also benefit from reduced presence of HFRs. The absence of requirements in this area would also delay investments by the recycling industry to improve WEEE treatment techniques and improve yields.

The recycling industry is represented by the European Recycling Industries’ Confederation (EURIC) and by the European Electronic and Electric Recyclers Association (EERA). For more information on the end-of-life materials please see Annex 12.

2.5.4.Consumers 

For consumers, the energy label offers a unique opportunity to make an informed choice as to which products offer the best environmental and energy performance allowing them to save money in the long run. Ecodesign requirements safeguard consumers from the worst performing products. Without up to date ecodesign and energy labelling requirements, consumers may miss out on savings of EUR 2.8 billion annually by 2030 (BAU compared to the ECO option, see Section 6).

Consumers are represented by the Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) and the European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC).

2.5.5.Society as a whole

For society as a whole, ambitious policies in the area of energy efficiency are important tools to mitigate climate change. Effective and efficient energy labelling and ecodesign regulations contribute to achieving goals set in the Paris Agreement; they help achieve the 2030 EU climate and energy objectives. In total, all these measures will generate 0.29 % of the total EU GHG-emissions savings target for 2030 and 0.66 % of the total EU final energy consumption savings target for 2030.

Environmental organisations are represented by the European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation (ECOS), the European Environment Bureau (EEB), TopTen, the Collaborative Labelling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP).

2.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

The legal basis for acting at EU level through the Ecodesign framework Directive and the Energy Labelling framework Regulation is Article 114 and Article 194 of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
[78](#footnote78)
 respectively. Article 114 relates to the "the establishment and functioning of the internal market", while Article 194 gives, amongst others, the EU the objective "in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment" to "ensure security of energy supply in the Union" and "promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy".

The Ecodesign Framework Directive and Energy Labelling Framework Regulation include a built-in proportionality and significance test. For the Ecodesign Framework Directive, Articles 15(1) and 15(2) state that a product should be covered by an ecodesign or a self-regulating measure if the following conditions are met:

·The product should represents a significant volume of sales;

·The product should have a significant environmental impact within the EU;

·The product should present a significant potential for improvement without entailing excessive costs, while taking into account:

o an absence of other relevant Community legislation or failure of market forces to address the issue properly;

oa wide disparity in environmental performance of products with equivalent functionality.

The procedure for preparing such measures is described in Article 15(3). In addition, the criteria of Article 15(5) should be met:

·No significant negative impacts on user functionality of the product;

·No significant negative impacts on Health, safety and environment;

·No significant negative impacts on affordability and life cycle costs;

·No significant negative impacts on industry’s competitiveness (including SMEs see Section 6.6.3).

The Energy Labelling Framework Regulation includes similar criteria for products covered by an energy label:

·The product group should have significant potential for saving energy and where relevant, other resources;

·Models with equivalent functionality should differ significantly in the relevant performance levels within the product group;

·There should be no significant negative impact as regards the affordability and the life cycle cost of the product group;

·The introduction of energy labelling requirements for a product group should not have a significant negative impact on the functionality of the product during use.

Following the procedure as defined in Article 15(3) of the Ecodesign Directive, it was established that electronic displays fulfil the above eligibility criteria.

3.2.Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action

Action at EU level gives end-users the guarantee that they buy an energy efficient product and provides end-users with harmonised information no matter in which MS they purchase their product. This is becoming all the more relevant as the online trade increases. With ecodesign and energy labelling at EU level, energy efficient products are promoted in all MSs, creating a larger market and hence greater incentives for the industry to develop them.

It is essential to ensure a level playing field for manufactures and dealers in terms requirements to be met before placing an appliance on the market and in terms of the information supplied to customers for sale across the EU internal market. For this reason, EU-wide legally binding rules are necessary.

Market surveillance is carried out by the MSAs appointed by MSs. In order to be effective, the market surveillance effort must be uniform across the EU to support the internal market and incentivise businesses to invest resources in designing, making and selling energy efficient products.

Manufacturers of electronic displays are worldwide companies placing the same or equivalent product models in different regions of Europe. Consequently, the ecodesign and energy labelling requirements in Europe can only be effectively implemented at EU level.

Finally, Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 requires the Commission to update the current energy labelling regulation for televisions, in particular as regards rescaling the label to remove the A+ to A+++ classes. Under the repealed Directive, energy labels were allowed to include A+ to A+++ classes to address the overpopulation of the top classes. Over time, due to technological development, also the A+ to A+++ class became overpopulated, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the labels significantly.

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

There is clear added value in requiring minimum energy efficiency levels and energy label class limits at EU-level.

Without harmonised requirements at EU level, MSs would be incentivised to lay down national product-specific minimum energy efficiency requirements in the framework of their environmental and energy policies. This would undermine the free movement of products and increase design, manufacturing and distribution costs. Before the ecodesign and energy label measures were implemented, this was in fact the case for many products.

The added value of EU action in the area of the circular economy has already been enshrined in the Circular Economy Action plan and the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019.

3.Policy Objectives: what is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

Following the legal basis in the TFEU, the general objectives are to:

1.Facilitate free circulation of efficient electronic displays within the internal market;

0.Promote the energy efficiency of electronic displays as a contribution to the EU's objective to reduce energy consumption by at least 30 % and domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 % by 2030; implement the energy efficiency first principle established in the Commission Communication on Energy Union Framework Strategy; and

1.Increase energy security in the EU and reduce energy dependency through a decrease in energy consumption of electronic displays.

There are several synergies between these objectives. Reducing electricity consumption (by increasing the energy efficiency) leads to lower carbon, acidifying and other emissions to air. Tackling the problem at EU internal market level enhances efficiency and effectiveness of the measure.

4.2.Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the policy options considered in this impact assessment are to correct the problems identified in the problem definition:

1.Update the energy efficiency requirements and the energy label in line with international and technological developments, and the revised Energy Labelling framework Regulation, to achieve cost-efficient energy savings;

0.Redefine the scope to close loopholes, remove ambiguities, facilitate execution of the Regulation, align it with market developments and better capture the potential for energy savings;

1.Contribute towards a circular economy by facilitating dismantling and recyclability.

These objectives will drive investments and innovations in a sustainable manner, increase monetary savings for the consumer, contribute to the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Paris Agreement, contribute to the Circular Economy Initiative and strengthen the competitiveness of EU industry.

4.What are the available Policy Options?

The procedure for identifying policy options follows from the Better Regulation Toolbox
[79](#footnote79)
. Specific measures in the policy options are the result of a combination of initiatives including three discussions in the Ecodesign Consultation Forum, input from a public consultation and from WTO on a previous proposal on Ecodesign only and inspiration taken from the Ecodesign framework Directive, the Energy Labelling framework Regulation and the Circular Economy Initiative. They aim to address the issues identified in Section 3 and achieving the policy objectives defined in Section 4.

Some measures presented in this impact assessment were extensively discussed with stakeholders during three Consultation Forums (8 October 2012, 10 December 2014 and 6 July 2017) and represent the consensus achieved. They apply to all policy options and are further detailed under option 2 - ECO. The main elements that need to be further assessed are the inclusion of signage displays (see policy option 3), restricting the use of HFRs (see policy option 3) and more lenient requirements for newer display technologies (see policy option 4).

Subsequently, the policy options considered for this impact assessment are listed in 
[Table 1](#_Ref517466979)
 (detailed description in the next sections):

Table 1: Policy options

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Option | Name | Short name | Description |
| Option 1 | Baseline | BAU | No further action, the current regulations regarding televisions stay in place unchanged, no scope extension to other displays. |
| Option 2 | ECO | ECO | Set the Ecodesign limits at a maximum Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) level of 0.9, reducing it to 0.75 after 3 years and 0.6 after 5 years.  Rescaling the label, leaving the top two classes empty.  Extending scope for on-mode energy use to computer monitors and improve definitions.  Introduce circular economy requirements for a number of displays. |
| Option 3 | Ambitious | Ambi | As ECO but with inclusion of signage displays in the energy label nd. |
| Option 4 | Lenient | Leni | As ECO but with a lower ambition level through a “50% allowance” for UHD/HDR displays (which allows them to satisfy ecodesign requirements more easily). |

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

In the baseline, the current Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations and all other relevant EU-level policies and measures are assumed to continue.

The requirement in the ETS to reduce emissions (from amongst other electricity production) will impact electronic displays in a baseline scenario. Indeed, if the energy consumption of electronic displays is not reduced, the indirect emissions (i.e. from electricity consumption) of electronic displays relative to the allowed emissions will increase. This either leads to higher ETS prices (which could in turn increase electricity prices) or to the need for additional emission reductions in ETS sectors (higher renewable energy targets or more reductions in industry).

Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have described how the situation will evolve in a baseline scenario in terms of energy savings, circular economy and scope.

Table 2: Intervention logic

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47019.jpg)

  

5.2.Description of the policy options

5.2.1.Option 1 – Baseline

This option implies that the current regulations and all other relevant EU-level policies and measures will continue, without any changes.

[Figure 10](#_Ref514170952)
 gives an estimate of annual energy use in on-mode of the EU stock of televisions, monitors and signage displays until 2030. It has to be noted that only televisions (and television monitors) (blue area) are in the scope of the current Regulations.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47020.jpg)

Figure 10: Yearly energy use in on-mode of the three most relevant types of electronic displays, in TWh, 1990-2030 (source VHK, 2018).

This shows that without further measures, the energy consumption of electronic displays will start to go up after around 2025 because of diminishing efficiency improvements and continued increase of the number of signage displays on the market.

This is largely because the sector is nearing some hard technological limits (see also Annex 4, section 6): getting beyond 5 nanometres in semiconductor manufacturing is not possible to date for electric signal processing and the development of light-chips or similar technology will take more time. Moreover, LEDs with an efficacy higher than the current market-best of 200 lm/W will be technically challenging and expensive. Although the development of so-called microLEDs (i.e. looking straight into millions of flawlessly operating LED-subpixels to create the picture without Liquid Crystals (polaroid and filters)) is advancing, and might bring the next step-change in energy efficiency, it has to be noted that the development and commercial mass production of microLEDs in conventional television sizes is considered as a major investment. This would probably mean at least a doubling of the ‘normal’ investment, which for a modern but still conventional display factory is over 10 billion Euros
[80](#footnote80)
.

In this context, the question is whether the sector would make such investments if there is no commercial incentive through an up-to-date energy label and no regulatory pressure of ecodesign requirements phasing out the worst performing products from the market. While EU regulations are not the only driver in this sector, evidence shows that countries worldwide are regulating television efficiency and are looking at the EU to take the lead.

In conclusion, regulating electronic displays under Energy Labelling and Ecodesign is an important driver for energy efficiency and climate change abatement where the EU can tip the global balance in moving to the next stage of innovation. Without such regulatory pressure, the BAU assumes that further major efficiency gains will not materialise, and that with the increasing volume of displays, total energy consumption will go up.

To properly assess the impact of the different policy options, the BAU scenario includes signage displays. In this way, it has been possible to take into account the increasing market share of signage displays and their impact on the energy consumption of the products in the scope of the impact assessment.

5.2.2.Option 2 – ECO

The ECO scenario includes the following measures for the Ecodesign and Energy Label scope, test standard and metrics, energy efficiency limits and circular economy.

Table 3: Proposed measures under Option 2-ECO

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Identified problems | Proposed measures |
| Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements | 1.Update Ecodesign energy efficiency limits  2.Rescale Energy Label  3.Update test standard and calculation method |
| Problem 2: Outdated scope | 4.Extend scope and improve definitions |
| Problem 3: Poor 'circular economy' performance | 5.Set requirements for dismantling, plastic marking, halogenated flame retardants, EPS |

Measures related to Problem 1

Measure 1: Update Ecodesign energy efficiency limits 

According to the Ecodesign framework Directive, minimum energy efficiency requirements should be set at the Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) level, provided there are no significant negative impacts. In principle, the LLCC can be calculated from purchase price (PP), lifetime of the unit (N in year), operating expense (OE), end-of-life costs (EoL), discount rate (d) and escalation rate (e). This assumes that the cost for improving the energy efficiency of a product is related to the price of that product: the price increases due to the cost for changing the product to improve the efficiency (this is the case for household appliances and lighting).

However, research
[81](#footnote81)
 and market data (Annex 6) have shown that for consumer electronics and ICT products (including televisions), their price does not relate to the efficiency of the product. In fact, for displays, over the last 10-15 years, usually around one year after a new development, the average price of displays dropped, e.g. from EUR 800 in 2005 to EUR 450 in 2017, while at the same time the energy efficiency increased (up to 7-8 % per year).

Product price is largely driven by the size of the display, processor power, operating system characteristics, "smart" features (such as gaming, browsing or streaming), number of external interfaces, audio capabilities, screen curving, contrast ratio and luminance and capabilities newly introduced in the market. High prices are asked for new products with high performance features. Once on the market, the price of these products will decrease (exponentially) until they are superseded by new products with improved functionality or new features.

This means that a specific LLCC-point cannot be determined but rather an economically reasonable pace of improvement needs to be determined in the light of the iterative impact analysis on display databases compiled since 2012 to determine cut-off and trends over the years. The latest database with energy efficiency information used for the calculations was created in January 2018
[82](#footnote82)
 and covers over 600 models offered on-line until December 2017. Database analysis can be found in Annex 13.

Moreover, an analysis of requirements in other jurisdictions was undertaken to verify whether that was some level of alignment given the global nature of the display market. 
[Figure 11](#_Ref517525798)
 shows the minimum energy efficiency limits around the globe in comparison to the proposed EU values. More details on efficiency schemes, inside and outside the EU, are provided in Annex 8.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47021.jpg)

Figure 11: Proposed EU Ecodesign limits for 2020, 2022, 2024 in comparison to 2012 EU limit and non-EU limits for on-mode power in Watt per viewable surface area in dm².

The proposed EU Ecodesign limits follow maximum Energy Efficiency Index values of EEImax=0.9 EEI (tier 1, one year after entry into force), EEImax= 0.75 EEI (tier 2, three years after entry into force) and EEImax=0.6 EEI (tier 3, five years after entry into force).

Apart from this new on-mode requirement, stricter requirements for other modes are also proposed, i.e. 0,3 W on off-mode, 0,5 W in standby and 2 W/6 W in network standby. Allowances are proposed for the features of Auto Brightness Control (ABC) and for presence sensors (switching off the display would the room be empty or the user fallen asleep). For signage displays, no minimum efficiency requirements for on-mode are proposed, as available data is not sufficient to set meaningful limits.

Based on the analysis of the available energy consumption data, for UHD/HDR displays an allowance of 20 % on the EEI is proposed to take into account their intrinsically higher energy consumption (which is on average 20 % higher than HD displays).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47022.jpg)

Figure 12: Proposed Labelling top class compared with non EU energy efficient top class displays

Stakeholder views: Some television manufacturers and some monitor suppliers consider the requirements too ambitious for some niche displays, although laboratory tests have not identified any reason for setting specific allowances (see Annex 13, Intertek tests). An exemption, limited in time, for OLED displays is proposed to take into account the relative youth of this technology and its low environmental impact at end of life. No major objection was raised by European manufacturer organisations on power limits in other modes than on-mode.

The Open Public Consultation (OPC) resulted in 64% of respondents considering the explicit indication on the label of power use in HDR influencing their purchase choice (with 16 % preferring to include this parameter in a single indicator) and 60.5 % asking to have the parameter clearly indicated.

Measure 2: Rescale the Energy Label

As per the new Energy Labelling framework Regulation, the updated energy label for displays would leave the ‘A’ and ‘B’ energy classes empty when the label is introduced, i.e. by April 2020. The estimate of Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Not yet Available Technology (BNAT) are as follows:

−BAT: UHD/HDR is 0.76 W/dm2 for a 55” TV display and 0.72 W/dm2 for a 60” TV display. HD 0.53 W/dm2 for a 49” TV. The computer monitor
[83](#footnote83)
 that the US Energy Star rates as ‘best in class’ consumes 0.85 W/dm2. All in all, BAT is close to the current A+++ class limit.

−BNAT: micro-LEDs promise a factor 2.5 to 3 improved energy efficiency over OLED with better picture quality. This would mean a value of 0.4 to 0.5 W/dm2. Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) panels are a promising efficient technology for high-end portable computers/tablets, but identifying the specific power for a commercial IGZO screen that is optimised for efficiency was not possible so far.

The proposed energy classes provided in table 4 below are not directly comparable with the current classes
[84](#footnote84)
. However, 
[Figure 13](#_Ref510796032)
 illustrates how the new A-G class limits relate to the existing A+/A++/A+++ class limits.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Table 4: ECO energy efficiency classes | |
| Energy efficiency class | New EEI |
| A | EEI ≤0.30 |
| B | 0.30 <EEI ≤0.40 |
| C | 0.40 <EEI ≤0.50 |
| D | 0.50 <EEI ≤0.60 |
| E | 0.60 <EEI ≤0.75 |
| F | 0.75 <EEI ≤0.90 |
| G | 0.90 <EEI ≤1.10 |

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47023.jpg)

Figure 13: Approximate comparison between new and old energy labelling classes.

The proposed Ecodesign requirements will be synchronised with the Energy Label: Tier 1 in 2020 will eliminate high definition (HD) displays falling in the new ‘G’ class (but G-class will still apply to UHD products), which is similar to the current A+ and lower. Tier 2 in 2022 will eliminate HD displays in the new ‘F’ class and UHD ones in the ‘G’ class. Tier 3 in 2024 will eliminate HD displays
[85](#footnote85)
 in the new ‘E’ class and UHD in the ‘F’ class. 
[![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47024.jpg)](#_Ref517103963)

[Figure 14](#_Ref517103963)
 shows the proposed energy classes in comparison with two other non-EU labelling schemes with multiple energy classes (the numbers inside the coloured bars are Watts of energy use in on-mode, as the y-axis indicates
[86](#footnote86)
).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47024.jpg)

Figure 14: Proposed label classes compared with non-EU labelling schemes for a 40" (44dm2) HD display.

Stakeholder views: Industry stakeholders consider the proposed label classes after rescaling rather ambitious, while NGOs would prefer even more ambitious levels. Stakeholders also commented on a provisional draft of the label, generally suggesting not to overload it with indications considered not crucial for a fair comparison of different displays models. No consensus was identified on specific aspects such as printing the label on the display packaging, indicating on a separate scale the power use for SDR and HDR (manufacturers in favour, some MS hesitant) or indication of annual energy use (details in Annex 5). 75 % of respondents to the OPC considered it important to indicate the resolution level of displays, a parameter not present on the current label.

Measure 3: Update test standard and calculation method

The test standard will be adapted through a mandate to ESOs (European Standardisation Organisations)
[87](#footnote87)
, in accordance with the global International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) 62087 standard, adjusted to fit the EU’s needs (but still largely comparable to the rest of the world, except for China see Figure 15 and Annex 8). This will inter alia include an update of the testing modalities to cope with higher resolutions (UHD-4K), larger colour gamut, and contrast ratios (‘HDR’), and to mitigate the risk of defeat devices
[88](#footnote88)
.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47025.jpg)

Figure 15: Use of the IEC 62087 standard worldwide (source: Catriona McCalister, Jeremy Tait for SEAD; www.superefficient.org)

At the same time, the calculation method will be adapted to address the relative advantage that bigger displays have in meeting the energy efficiency requirements for the different classes on the label.

Stakeholder views: All stakeholders supported the update of the test standard as it would better reflect real life conditions and help avoid circumvention. A testing method for ABC has been repeatedly discussed with manufacturers’ representatives. Since the first Consultation Forum meeting (see Minutes in Annex 5.3), the majority of stakeholders were also in favour of a calculation method that was based on a logarithmic regression line
[89](#footnote89)
, as this would be more stringent for the largest TVs.

Measures related to problem 2

Measure 4: Update scope, improve definitions

The scope of both Ecodesign and Energy Labelling would be extended from televisions to monitors and signage displays. For Ecodesign only, standby and non-energy requirements are extended to professional and commercial monitors as well. No requirements for on-mode energy efficiency are proposed as this professional market is very specialised.

These products are currently already covered by the horizontal standby Regulation
[90](#footnote90)
. However, standby requirements will be included in this revised Regulation to reduce administrative burden (all requirements for these products will be in one single regulation).

The energy savings that can be achieved from very small displays are not considered significant. Moreover, minimum efficiency requirements could interfere with the functional specifications for certain special purpose displays. Therefore, full or partial
[91](#footnote91)
 exemptions for small displays
[92](#footnote92)
, special purpose displays (medical, broadcast, security displays, etc.), digital photo frames, projectors, displays in means of transport are proposed to ensure an appropriate balance between energy savings to be realised and estimated administrative burden.

Finally, this option does not include energy efficiency requirements for signage displays. While this is a growing market, little data is available on their energy efficiency (other than that it is typically higher than that for ‘normal’ displays) and they comprise a wide range of different products (see Annex 6.3 for further details). They are however covered by material efficiency and information requirements.

Stakeholder views: Since the first Consultation Forum a majority of Member States and NGOs agreed on extending the requirements to electronic displays other than televisions, including computer monitors and signage displays (see minutes in Annex 5). Industry representatives on the contrary considered that signage displays are a very specific market about which too little is known to justify setting minimum efficiency requirements and for which specific test standards would have to be developed. Moreover, manufacturers requested exceptions for specialised displays with distinct characteristics, and temporary extensions for new, emerging technologies, such as OLED. Manufacturers are also in favour of moving standby requirements for all displays into the "vertical" regulation on displays, as this would mitigate the administrative burden.

Measures related to problem 3

Measure 5: Set circular economy requirements

A number of requirements were discussed extensively with stakeholders throughout the revision process, and include:

−Requiring components subject to the WEEE Directive to be safely and easily removable
[93](#footnote93)
;

−Marking of plastics components >50g;

−Requiring repair information relevant for replacement of defective components;

−Requiring detailed documentation on the presence and chemical composition of flame retardants in components
[94](#footnote94)
;

−Requiring stickers/marking on the back cover and internally on the panel, indicating whether the product contains mercury (‘Hg’ icon) and/or cadmium (‘Cd’ icon), which are substances considered particularly toxic and needing specific manipulation by staff at recycling centres;

-Encouraging the use of standardised “universal” external power supplies (EPS),
[95](#footnote95)
 by including a logo on the energy label indicating whether a standardised EPS is provided with the product.

As regards reparability and durability, replacement of the entire display panel is technically feasible. However, the replacement costs are too high compared to the cost of a new display, to justify requirements on availability of spare panels.

While the requirement to provide information on the presence and chemical composition of flame retardants would in itself not reduce their presence in plastic parts, it would allow recyclers to identify them easier and avoid health risks during the recycling process.

Stakeholder views: Manufacturers and other industry sectors, particularly FEICA
[96](#footnote96)
, as well as some third countries
[97](#footnote97)
, strongly objected to a dismantling requirement that, in their view, would overly restrict the use of gluing techniques as was proposed in a draft discussed at the Consultation Forum in December 2014. An alternative requirement, proposed to the Consultation Forum in July 2017 satisfied manufacturers, but recycling and repair industry associations, and NGOs were critical (see Annex 2 and Annex 5.1).

Recyclers would also like to see a requirement for a minimum amount of recycled plastics in new products, although this would complicate compliance control by Member States. The Open Public Consultation (OPC) showed that 67% of respondents preferring a display with a standardised EPS and 63% considering it important to have it indicated on the energy label (as an indicator of durability/reparability).

The latest draft working document presented to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum in 2017 contained a proposal for marking and detailed information requirements regarding type and quantity of the flame retardants. This proposal met with criticism regarding the administrative burden for industry and market surveillance authorities. It was also questioned whether recyclers would really act on the availability of this type of information. On the other hand, recyclers and NGOs were in favour of a total ban of at least halogenated flame retardants, as any plastic containing any type of halogenated substance (mostly bromine compounds) is currently incinerated because separation of allowed additives from non-allowed ones is economically unsustainable.

5.2.3.Option 3 - Ambitious 

Option 3 includes the same measures as option 2 but with an extension of the scope of Energy Labelling to include signage displays, and restricting the use of halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand.

Inclusion of signage displays in the energy label

Most signage displays consume on average 2.5 times more energy than a television of the same size
[98](#footnote98)
 and it is a rapidly growing market. While setting minimum efficiency requirements under ecodesign would be premature, their inclusion in the energy label would allow customers of these displays to be informed about their efficiency and be able to compare their performance. Labelling of signage displays, moreover, would be a useful, reliable and efficient tool in public procurement, in view of Directive 2012/27/EU, Annex III.(a) which requires Member State governments to procure only products in the highest efficiency classes of the energy label.

The energy label for signage displays would be similar to the one for televisions and computer monitors. The EEI is adapted to take into account the higher luminance of signage displays, through a correction factor for peak luminance applied to the EEI formula.

Phasing out halogenated flame retardants

This option involves restricting the use of any HFRs in the display-casings and stands by April 2020, while maintaining the requirement to document the presence of any type of flame retardant as per the ECO option.

This has become feasible since, by June 2019 (i.e. almost one year before the proposed application date), a new safety standard EN 62386-1:2014 will supersede the old standards in the EU, thereby removing the ‘candle’ test. As a result, restricting the use of at least halogenated flame retardants in the casings and stands should be feasible for manufacturers. In fact, several display manufacturers are already making the switch to non-HFR such as phosphorous, inorganic and nitrogen-based flame retardants. Some display manufacturers claim that all brominated flame retardants were eliminated already a long time ago, not only from the enclosure and stand, but even from connectors, circuit boards and other internal components
[99](#footnote99)
.

Stakeholder views: Throughout the consultation process, several Member States and NGOs advocated for the inclusion of signage displays in the scope of the Regulations (see Annex 5). Manufacturers never expressed "a priori" opposition but argued for specific tests and requirements, possibly adapted from televisions and monitors.

Many stakeholders in the Consultation Forum in 2012 (Annex 5.3) already solicited the Commission to introduce "non-energy" requirements and signalled in particular that the use of certain flame retardants was hindering recycling. However, some product manufactures and the representatives of producers of halogenated flame retardants (FRE) consider that RoHS or REACH legislation may be more appropriate for restricting the use of certain substances
[100](#footnote100)
.

In the Consultation Forum of 2014 (Annex 5.2), the proposed resource efficiency requirements were supported by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders. However, some specific requirements, such as time limits as an indicator for compliance of dismantle-ability, were criticised by industry representatives as being overly prescriptive.

5.2.4.Option 4 - Lenient 

Option 4 includes the same measures as option 2 but with a more lenient minimum energy efficiency requirement under ecodesign for UHD/HDR displays by allowing for a 50% higher on-mode consumption. In the Eco and in the Ambi options only 20% is foreseen
[101](#footnote101)
 and no limit is set for HDR displays.

Stakeholder views: Several major manufacturers strongly requested a 50% allowance since the consultation forum meeting in 2014, to avoid stifling innovation and depriving consumers from the latest technology. On the contrary, NGOs and some Member States have supported an ambition level comparable or even higher than the ECO option.

Throughout the consultation process, most of the Asian manufacturers have requested generous energy allowances for every new feature that came on the market, such as a 50% bonus for 3D-TVs and a bonus of 50% for UHD-4K resolution compared to HD. Data analysis on the displays of 2016 and of end 2017, however, shows a clear trend to a power use for UHD resolution closer and closer to HD.

5.3.Option discarded at an early stage: Voluntary agreement by the industry

A voluntary agreement has to be given priority according to the Ecodesign Framework Directive, provided it meets the objectives in a quicker and more cost-effective manner. Today minimum mandatory requirements are already in force. Since no proposal has been put forward by industry, there is no voluntary agreement that meet the conditions of the Ecodesign Directive. As a consequence, this option is discarded from further analysis. When substituting mandatory requirements by a voluntary agreement there would be a risk of free riders
[102](#footnote102)
, in case not all actors present on the market would sign such an agreement and comply with it.

Stakeholder views: None of the stakeholders is in favour of voluntary agreements for the reasons set out above.

5.What are the impacts of the policy options?

The options for further analysis include BAU, ECO, Ambitious (Ambi) and Lenient (Leni) scenarios as described above.

6.1.Methodology and key assumptions 

The latest draft working document presented to the Ecodesign sources. Digital Europe delivered in 2012, 2014 and in 2016 datasets of televisions, computer monitors and some signage display models (600 or more models). Other databases, including 2017 models, established by CLASP, VHK and Intertek were used as well. For more information, please see Annex 13, which also contains the outcome of an Intertek measurement test for the Commission on computer displays.

Employment impacts are derived from revenue per employee, checked against reported revenue totals for the sector and information from annual reports of individual manufacturers.

In this Impact Assessment, in line with the MEErP
[103](#footnote103)
, energy prices were assessed from Eurostat data and for future projections an escalation rate of 4% was used, together with a sensitivity analysis based on the most recent PRIMES rates (0.95% escalation rate from 2020). All prices and costs are expressed in Euro 2010, calculated with historical inflation. For investment-type considerations, a discount rate of 4% is used, in line with the Commission's recommended values (see guidelines in the Better Regulation Toolbox).

For primary energy conversion rates for electricity generation and distribution, a Primary Energy Factor (PEF) of 2.5 is used, implying, by convention, a 40% efficiency over the full projection period. For GHG emissions, the emission rate (in kg CO2 eq./kWh) varies over the projection period in line with overall EU projections as indicated in the MEErP. More details of the modelling can be found in Annex 4.

[Figure 16](#_Ref517359514)
 illustrates the expected trend in energy labelling under the ECO-scenario (only TVs and monitors in the scope). Under the Lenient scenario (with a credit of 1.5 instead of 1.2 for UHD/HDR) the lower classes will include more products (as more products are allowed on the market under Ecodesign). In the Ambitious scenario, where inefficient signage displays are in the scope, it is also expected that the lower energy label classes will be more populated.

This projection assumes a progression of 7.5% per annum improvement in energy efficiency – thus, each model in the 2018 database is improved by 7.5 % for 2019, and a further 7.5 % for 2020 and so-on. This rate of technology progression matches the levels observed in the market from 2011 through 2017 and also takes into account some new technology being introduced to televisions including quantum dots and logical pixels. Moreover, it assumes that half the models in the database adopt Automatic Brightness Control, which offers a power allowance of 15 %.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47026.jpg)

Figure 16: Energy label class distribution of standard electronic display models available in the EU over the period 2010-2030 (actual 2013-2016 and projections 2017-2030) with proposed Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures.

It has to be noted that there are considerable uncertainties in future projections for this highly ‘volatile’ product group and consumption and savings estimates should be conceived as ranges within a certain bandwidth.

No direct relation appears to exist between retail prices and the level of energy efficiency. Topten analysed this specific aspect on television models, using sales data from GfK
[104](#footnote104)
: Figure 17 shows that, whilst there is a clear correlation between screen size and cost, there is no clear relation between energy class and cost (e.g. the A++ class has an average cost lower than A+ and A and close to B). Moreover, as explained further, the formulas for calculating the energy class in the current regulation are advantageous for the biggest displays, thus the highest classes tend to be more populated with bigger displays.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47027.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47028.jpg)

Figure 17: TV average retail price according to display size and to energy classe for 40-50 inch television displays (source: Topten on GfK data for 2012).

6.2.Environmental Impact 

6.2.1.Electricity savings

[Figure 18](#_Ref512188517)
 shows the development of EU energy consumption of electronic displays under the different scenarios. The graph indicates that:

−In 2020, the BAU-scenario predicts 94 TWh/yr electricity consumption, equivalent to the 2016 final electricity consumption of Belgium.

−In 2030, the BAU scenario is estimated to result in 4 TWh/yr additional electricity consumption due to the lack of updated energy efficiency requirements, while the size and number of televisions keeps rising.

−The ECO scenario gives 24 TWh/yr additional savings in 2030 with respect to the BAU (equivalent to Irish final electricity consumption in 2013), while the Lenient scenario (‘Leni’, green line) saves 16 TWh/yr in 2030.

−The ‘Ambi’ scenario combines the ECO scenario with labelling for signage displays
[105](#footnote105)
, which will save an additional 15 TWh/yr in 2030. In total, the saving of the ‘Ambi’ scenario is estimated to be 39 TWh/yr in 2030.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47029.jpg)

Figure 18: Energy consumption scenarios 1990-2030 electronic displays

The significant savings in all scenarios are driven by technology improvements, underpinned by the proposed measures, which counteract the increase in energy consumption in the BAU scenario. In the BAU scenario, the energy consumption of electronic displays will start to go up after around 2024 because of diminishing efficiency improvements and continued increase of the number of signage displays on the market.

Stakeholder views: Already since the second of the four Ecodesign Consultation forums (2012), there was a consensus among all stakeholders on the need of reviewing the Ecodesign Regulation, because the technology progress had been quicker than expected and some further adaptations would be cost effective, such as scope extension to computer monitors and signage displays.

In 2014, stakeholders requested to delay the review of the Labelling measure until after the revision of the framework Directive. The third Consultation forum in 2017 further confirmed the need to come forward quickly with revised Ecodesign and Labelling regulations, and confirmed the need to address signage displays.

Manufacturers always advocated for less strict requirements for UHD and for the exclusion of new technologies from Ecodesign, such as OLED and HDR. They also requested a different energy efficiency index and other specific requirements for signage displays, such as the removal of the "auto power down" requirement.

6.2.2.Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The trends in scenarios for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are similar to the energy consumption trends. The main difference is that the absolute savings over time are higher, as the energy scenarios use, by convention, a fixed power generation and distribution efficiency of 40 %, whereas for the projections of the GHG-emissions the changes in carbon-intensity of electric power generation are taken into account. As a result, figure 19 shows that by 2030 (compared to 2015):

−the BAU scenario gives a saving of 7 Mt CO2 eq.;

−the ECO scenario saves an additional 7 Mt compared to BAU;

−the Ambitious scenario saves 13 Mt more than BAU; and

−the Lenient scenario gives an extra 5 Mt savings with respect to BAU.

Stakeholder views: Stakeholders never raised specific views on GHG emissions as they are closely linked to the energy requirements (see above). However, manufacturers have sometimes voiced the concern that, as improvements in the use-phase are increasing the relative importance of energy consumption and emissions during the manufacturing stage, where certain greenhouse gases are used
[106](#footnote106)
.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47030.jpg)

Figure 19: EU greenhouse gas over the period 2005-2030, in Mt CO2 equivalent, for various scenarios

6.2.3.Circular Economy perspective

The environmental life-cycle assessments in the technical review studies show that energy consumption and the related emissions, especially GHG emissions, are dominant environmental impacts for this product category.

Televisions and monitors are subject to the WEEE-directive. From August 2018, the recovery rate for these products must be 85 % with at least 80 % recycled. To facilitate recycling, the removability of key components as per Article 8(2) of the WEEE Directive is important.

Presence of (in particular halogenated) flame retardants in plastics is the main barrier to plastics recycling. Through the measures proposed in all scenarios it is estimated that an additional 76 kt plastics could be recycled instead of being incinerated. These measures would also prevent the introduction of 20 kt/year of halogenated flame retardants on the market.

Halogenated compounds degrade into dioxin derivatives, particularly when heated, such as during production, recycling or even exposure to sun. Electronic waste is often melted to recycle the metal components and such heating can generate toxic dioxins and furans. Poor-quality incineration, similarly, releases high quantities of toxic degradation products. Consequently, recycling can contaminate workers and communities near recycling plants. In humans, HFRs have been shown to cause reproductive abnormalities, diabetes, thyroid dysregulation, cognitive changes and undescended testicles in new-born boys (see also Annex 15).

There is no administrative burden for industry and distributors and a limited burden (laboratory spot-checks but no paper trails to check) for surveillance authorities.

Stakeholder views: Already since the Consultation Forum of 2012 (Annex 5.3), Member States and NGOs required the inclusion of circular economy requirements. The recycling industry argued that gluing and welding pose problems for the recycling process for the safety of workers, the environment and the increased contamination of the waste stream, particularly PMMA
[107](#footnote107)
 boards (see e.g. EURIC position, Annex 5.1). At the same time, the chemical industry claimed that research is ongoing for more compatible glue compositions making depollution and de-bonding possible.

Recyclers and NGOs also systematically requested a ban of flame retardants, or at least of halogenated ones (Annex 5.1 and 5.2), while manufacturers claimed that this may involve the redesign of some products.

6.3.Business impacts

6.3.1.Business revenue

As mentioned before there is no demonstrated correlation between energy efficiency and the price of the displays
[108](#footnote108)
. In other words, there is no rational basis for establishing whether the prices and thereby business revenues and jobs will be different from Business-as-Usual (BAU) in the various policy scenarios. For the BAU we will assume the price (EUR 448/unit for a TV) and sales established in Annex 6.

‘Business impacts’ is a part of the Impact Assessment report that should give the impact of policy options on the European industry. As mentioned, there are no longer any European TV-panel manufacturers
[109](#footnote109)
. There is a ‘business impact’ of the measures from lower energy costs of operating signage displays for companies and institutions (shops, schools, public transport). This is taken into account in the consumer expenditure section hereafter.

As mentioned in section 2.5, another ‘business impact’ comes from recyclers who are a party most interested in the phasing out of halogenated flame retardants, better disassembly, etc. In addition, the 5000-10,000 persons estimated to be involved in display repair will benefit from better disassembly and repair information.

6.3.2.Innovation, Research and Development, Competitiveness and Trade

There is no EU industry for display panels nor, given the huge investment needed to set up a manufacturing plant and the current market situation
[110](#footnote110)
, is it likely that it will develop in the near future. Hence, although an EU university or research institute might get an occasional assignment from an Asian industry to work in a related field, there is no relevant Research and Development in the field of display-technology in the EU. In short, most innovation in this sector will come from Asia. The EU is still an attractive market of 500 million relatively wealthy consumers. Setting ambitious mandatory minimum Ecodesign requirements, combined with a stimulating Energy Label scheme, will positively influence innovation.

Improving the potential yields of usable recycled material will encourage the development of technologies to treat properly waste from electronic displays, possibly in larger scale plants.

Trade data lack accuracy because the Asian display panels enter and leave the EU through various routes and in various forms (as an entire product, or just the display panel). All display panels and 80% of other components are imported.

6.3.3.Compliance costs

Ecodesign and energy label requirements for televisions and displays in the scope have had a strong influence on the market and have been in existence for almost 10 years.

Research and development as well as production investments are common practice in this innovative and dynamic sector. Redesign would happen with or without new measures. Any potential extra cost is expected to be absorbed by the industry. With or without the measures, manufacturers will be obliged to test their products according to the new test method, to compete on the global market. Therefore, costs from testing according to the new standard will be the same for all options.

6.3.4.Intellectual property rights

The technologies considered in all scenarios are commonly available to all major manufacturers and, as confirmed by stakeholders, the measures do not impose proprietary technologies.

6.3.5.Stranded investments

In the case of electronic displays, stranded investments may arise in Asia but not in the EU since there is no production. Stakeholders did not raise the issue.

6.4.Consumer expenditure

Consumer expenditure consists of acquisition costs, maintenance/repairs and running costs. In this case, where repair costs are modest (estimated in the order of EUR 0.5 bn/year), they are assumed to be included in the acquisition costs. The running costs consist thus only of energy costs.

As explained before, it is not possible to differentiate between acquisition costs per unit in the various scenarios. The only acquisition cost differentiation is between a scenario including signage displays and a scenario excluding signage displays and in the difference in unit sales for these two scenarios. The average price of a signage display is set at twice the price of a normal television, because it is twice the average surface area and generally used in a more demanding environment (e.g. high ambient lighting, outdoors).

In 2020, the acquisition costs excluding signage displays in the EU are calculated at EUR 25.8 bn, of which standard TVs make up EUR 5.9 bn, smart TVs EUR 17.6 bn and monitors EUR 2.4 bn (all incl. VAT). Including signage displays, at acquisition costs of EUR 3.6 bn (excl. VAT
[111](#footnote111)
), the total acquisition costs are EUR 29.4 bn.

In the same year, the total energy costs are EUR 17.7bn excluding signage displays and EUR 23.5 bn including signage displays. For signage displays the nominal energy costs and acquisition costs add up to EUR 9.4 bn. For TVs and monitors, the sum of energy and acquisition costs is EUR 43.5 bn, of which the energy costs are around 35 %. Including also signage displays, the total becomes EUR 52.8 bn in 2020 as shown in

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Table](#_Ref512456380) [5](#_Ref512456380) [: Estimated costs of electronic displays in 2020](#_Ref512456380) | | | |
| [In EUR billion](#_Ref512456380) | [Acquisition costs](#_Ref512456380) | [Energy costs](#_Ref512456380) | [Acquisition and Energy costs](#_Ref512456380) |
| [TVs and monitors](#_Ref512456380) | [25,8](#_Ref512456380) | [17,7](#_Ref512456380) | [43,5](#_Ref512456380) |
| [Signage displays](#_Ref512456380) | [3,6](#_Ref512456380) | [5,8](#_Ref512456380) | [9,4](#_Ref512456380) |
| [Total](#_Ref512456380) | [29,4](#_Ref512456380) | [23,5](#_Ref512456380) | [52,8](#_Ref512456380) |

.

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 5: Estimated costs of electronic displays in 2020 | | | |
| In EUR billion | Acquisition costs | Energy costs | Acquisition and Energy costs |
| TVs and monitors | 25,8 | 17,7 | 43,5 |
| Signage displays | 3,6 | 5,8 | 9,4 |
| Total | 29,4 | 23,5 | 52,8 |

In accordance with the MEErP methodology, the escalation rate for the electricity price is 4 %. Inflation – to arrive at euros 2010 – follows historical tariffs as available and 2 %/yr thereafter. 
[Figure 20](#_Ref517360485)
 shows that the ECO scenario will save the consumer EUR 8 bn/yr in 2030 compared to BAU. The Lenient scenario will save EUR 6 bn/yr. When including signage displays, it is assumed that the ‘Ambi’ scenario would add another EUR 10 bn/yr savings to the ECO scenario and thus result in a total saving of EUR 18 bn.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_47031.jpg)

Figure 20: Consumer expenditure scenarios 1990-2030 (in fixed euros 2010).

6.4.1.Sensitivity analysis

The consumer expenditure above has been calculated according to the MEErP with an escalation rate, i.e. a price increase above inflation, of 4 %. This means for instance for 2030 a household electricity tariff of EUR 0.36/kWh (in Euro 2010). Recent PRIMES scenarios use a considerably lower tariff, which on average results in an escalation rate of 1.5 %. This means a tariff of EUR 0.24/kWh (in Euro 2010) for 2030.

The sensitivity analysis presented in the table below gives the consumer expenditure and energy costs at this lower tariff, in order to validate whether this would make the scenarios uneconomical for consumers. The costs are given per year (2015-2040) and accumulative over the periods 2021-2030 and 2021-2040.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 6. Scenario results with electricity tariff escalation rate 1.5%(from 2015) instead of 4% | | | | | | | |
| Consumer expenditure (in bn Euros 2010) | | | | | | | |
|  | per year | | | | | accumulative | |
|  | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | '21-30 | '21-40 |
| BAU | 43 | 50 | 53 | 61 | 65 | 542 | 1176 |
| ECO | 43 | 50 | 52 | 57 | 58 | 527 | 1097 |
| Lenient | 43 | 49 | 51 | 55 | 58 | 515 | 1078 |
| Ambi | 43 | 47 | 47 | 51 | 52 | 478 | 988 |
| Energy costs (in bn Euros 2010) | | | | | | | |
|  | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | '21-30 | '21-40 |
| BAU | 19 | 20 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 212 | 475 |
| ECO | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 197 | 397 |
| Lenient | 19 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 21 | 185 | 377 |
| Ambi | 19 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 148 | 288 |

The most important outcome is, although monetary savings are of course lower than at an escalation rate of 4 %, the energy costs are still a substantial part of life cycle costs and savings are worthwhile in all scenarios.

6.5.Administrative burden

In the impact assessment prepared in view of the revision of the Energy Labelling framework Regulation
[112](#footnote112)
 the administrative burden of the new measures under that regulation was calculated. Table 7 summarizes those costs for the product group of electronic displays.

For Ecodesign measures, the above-mentioned impact assessment study considers that there is no additional administrative burden for industry, because there is a vested commercial interest
[113](#footnote113)
. More details can be found in Annex 12.

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 7: Administrative burden in '000 euros | | | |
| Administrative burden | one-off | annual | BAU |
| For the first 6 months provide a second label and supply extra labels on request to dealers | 3300 |  | - |
| Dealers re-labelling around 2.5% of products on stock/display or on the internet. | 600 |  | - |
| Database, supplier costs |  | 90 | - |
| Database, EU budget | 90 | 9 | - |
| Joint support actions, EU budget (e.g. EEPLIANT) |  | 33 | x |
| Support joint surveillance actions (Horizon2020) |  | 60 | x |
| External laboratory costs (SMEs) |  | 66 | x |
| Market surveillance, Member State costs |  | 330 | x |
| Total business-as-usual (BAU) | - | 489 |  |
| Total new costs of measures | 3990 | 99 |  |
| of which |  |  |  |
| - Supplier budget | 3300 | 90 |  |
| - Dealer budget | 600 | - |  |
| - EU budget | 90 | 9 |  |

Stakeholder views: No issue was raised regarding affordability.

6.6.Social Impact

6.6.1.Affordability

As mentioned before, there is no direct relation between the energy efficiency level of electronic displays and their retail price. Moreover, the new technologies generally bring – after the first introduction period – both an energy efficiency increase and a price decrease. In that sense, no negative impact on affordability is expected.

Stakeholder views: No issue was raised regarding affordability.

6.6.2.Health, Safety and Functionality Aspects

There are no known negative impacts from using more efficient appliances as prescribed by the policy options. Reduced/no use of flame retardants, some of which are toxic, would be beneficial for workers in WEEE plants (for further details see section 6.2.3).

6.6.3.Employment

No significant impact of the proposed measures on EU employment is expected. No product price increase is expected due to higher efficiency. The measures to improve resources efficiency have mostly neutral or positive business impacts.

Stakeholder views: No issue was raised regarding employment.

6.6.4.SMEs

As mentioned in section 2.5, no independent SMEs working in the production chain of electronic displays could be identified
[114](#footnote114)
. SME retailers do exist, but it is not expected that the specific measures proposed here will have a significant impact on them. The 5,000 to 10,000 SME repair shops will benefit from better repair information and easier disassembly. Likewise, SME recyclers will benefit, in the long term, from the elimination of HFR for non-electric components and from measures for easier disassembly.

6.How do the options compare?

7.1.Summary of the impacts

Tables 8 and 9 summarise the impacts described in Section 6. Option 1 – baseline – does not contribute to any of the objectives. Option 2 – ECO – contributes to all objectives but does not achieve as many cost effective energy savings as option 3. Option 4 – lenient – only contributes to two out of three specific objectives (does not achieve cost effective energy savings) and it is therefore not seen as an appropriate policy option. Option 3 – Ambitious – contributes to all three objectives and achieves most cost-effective energy savings. Therefore, Option 3 is the preferred option.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 8. Overview main annual impacts of the policy options | | | | | | | |  |  |
| Impact (unit) | 2020 | 2030 | | | | 2040 | | | |
|  | absolute | absolute | increment | | | absolute | increment | | |
|  | BAU | BAU | Leni | ECO | Ambi | BAU | Leni | ECO | Ambi |
| On-mode specific power stock (W/dm²) | 1,82 | 1,20 | -0,31 | -0,50 | -0,58 | 0,83 | -0,28 | -0,40 | -0,45 |
| Electricity consumption (in TWh/yr) | 94 | 98 | -16 | -22 | -40 | 98 | -22 | -25 | -45 |
| GHG emissions (in Mt CO2 eq./a) | 33 | 28 | -6 | -7 | -14 | 29 | -7 | -7 | -13 |
| Material resources inputs (in kt) [1] | 770 | 1185 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1438 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Waste collected (in kt, 10yr post-input) [2] | 700 | 700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1066 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Waste recycled/reuse/recovered [3] | 595 | 595 | 76 | 76 | 84 | 906 | 126 | 126 | 140 |
| Acquisition costs (in €bn) | 29 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Energy costs (in €bn) | 23 | 36 | -6 | -8 | -15 | 53 | -12 | -13 | -24 |
| Consumer expenditure (in €bn) | 50 | 73 | -6 | -8 | -15 | 90 | -12 | -13 | -24 |
| EU Industry revenue (in €bn) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Importers revenue (in €bn) | 14 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Retail revenue (in €bn) | 10 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total business revenue (in €bn) | 25 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Employment (in '000' jobs, mainly retail) | 224 | 272 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 275 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [1] Sales x weight. TV sales in 2020/'30/'40 was 52/69/70 m units at weight of 12/15/18kg per unit. Monitor weight in those years was 5/6/7 kg, always at 10 m unit sales. Signage display sales was 4/3/3 m units at product weight 24/30/36 kg. | | | | | | | | | |
| [2] 90% of materials input 10 years before (trend in WEEE statistics) | | | | | | | | | |
| [3] In BAU, recovery rate is 85% of collected waste (80% recycled) ; in policy scenarios without halogenated flame retardants and optimal disassembly some 76 kt plastics could be recycled extra (theoretical maximum at 100% and c.p.). | | | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 9. Overview main accumulative impacts of the policy options | | | | | | | | |
| Impact (unit) | 2021-2030 | | | | 2021-2040 | | | |
|  | absolute | increment | | | absolute | increment | | |
|  | BAU | Leni | ECO | Ambi | BAU | Leni | ECO | Ambi |
| EU electricity consumption (in TWh/yr) | 927 | -64 | -115 | -277 | 1922 | -303 | -385 | -744 |
| EU GHG emissions (in Mt CO2 eq./a) | 332 | -22 | -40 | -98 | 648 | -98 | -126 | -247 |
| Consumer expenditure (in €bn) | 619 | -22 | -38 | -89 | 1448 | -132 | -162 | -304 |
| Energy costs (in €bn) | 289 | -22 | -38 | -89 | 615 | -132 | -162 | -304 |
| Acquisition costs (in €bn, incl. VAT) | 325 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 691 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Industry revenue (in €bn) | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wholesale revenue (in €bn) | 158 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 166 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Retail revenue (in €bn) | 112 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 124 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total revenue (in €bn) | 280 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 310 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

7.2.Market Surveillance

All proposed policy options would be subject to Article 15(8) of the Ecodesign Framework Directive, as well as Article 8(1) and (3) of Energy Labelling Framework Regulation, which requires that market surveillance authorities can verify the conformity of a product with all regulatory requirements.

The ComplianTV project
[115](#footnote115)
 has shown that current compliance level for this product group is good and would be further improved under the Ambi scenario.

The cost for market surveillance is lowest for the baseline because in this case there would not be a new energy label. The cost for surveillance of the other options would be the same, i.e. as indicated in section 6.4. The extension of the Energy Label scope in the Ambi scenario will add to surveillance costs, but the new Energy Label database will contribute in lowering surveillance costs.

Stakeholder views: DigitalEurope have emphasised the importance of securing a sufficient level of market surveillance to ensure that only compliant products are placed on the market. In this respect, they call for increased enforcement by MSAs.

7.3.Assessment in view of Article 15(5)

According to Article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive, each policy option should not have a significant negative impact. Qualitative aspects discussed across Section 6 are summarised in Table 10 below.

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 9: Evaluation of policy option impacts compared to the baseline | | | | |
| Significant impacts as stipulated in Article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive | BAU | ECO | Ambi | Leni |
| No significant negative impacts on the functionality of the product from the perspective of the user (section 6.4.1) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected (section 6.6.2) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| No significant negative impact on consumers in particular as regards affordability and life-cycle costs (section 6.6.1) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| No significant negative impacts on industry's competitiveness (section 6.3) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Setting of an ecodesign requirement shall not have the consequence of imposing proprietary technology on manufacturers (section 6.3.4) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Impose no excessive administrative burden on manufacturers (section 6.5) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |

All options fulfil the criteria of Article 15(5).

Pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Energy labelling Framework Regulation, future implementing measures should fulfil a number of criteria (see Section 3.1). The criteria are fulfilled, namely:

·The product group has significant potential for saving energy;

·The proposed bands of the energy label will differentiate among displays (see section 6.1), which are today all concentrated in the top classes;

·There is no negative impact on affordability, as shown in Section 6.6.1 and 
[Table 9](#_Ref526859485)
;

All options with the new energy label fulfil the criteria of Article 16(2).

7.4.Assessment in view of the objectives

The qualitative evaluation according to the objectives presented in Section 4, on the basis of Tables 8 and 9, is shown in 
[Table 10](#_Ref511062275)
.

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 10: Score of impacts against objectives (see section 4). | | | | |
| General Objectives | BAU | ECO | Ambi | Leni |
| 1. Ensure free circulation of efficient products within the internal market; | 0 | + | + | + |
| 2. Promote competitiveness of the electronic display industry through the creation or expansion of the EU internal market for sustainable products; | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3. Promote the energy efficiency of electronic displays as contribution to the EU's objective to reduce energy consumption by 30 % and domestic GHG emissions by 40 % by 2030; | 0 | + | ++ | 0/+ |
| 4. Increase the security of energy supply in the Union through a reduction in energy consumption of electronic displays | 0 | + | ++ | 0/+ |
| Specific Objectives |  |  |  |  |
| 1. Update the energy efficiency requirements and the energy label in line with international and technical developments; | 0 | + | ++ | 0/+ |
| 2. Redefine the scope to close loopholes, remove ambiguities | 0 | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| 3. Contribute towards a circular economy | 0 | + | ++ | + |

No Change (0), slight improvement (0/+), limited improvement (+), significant improvement (++).

Option 1 – BAU does not contribute to any of the specific objectives.

Option 2 – ECO is a balanced option for televisions and computer monitors that also takes into account circular economy aspects. However, it does not take into account the rapidly growing market of signage displays and there is thus a risk that the energy savings from televisions and computer monitors will be overshadowed by an uncontrolled increase of energy consumption of signage displays.

Option 3 – Ambi builds on the ECO scenario, but the scope is extended to include signage displays, which are estimated to become a major energy consumer in the near future and could constitute a major loophole for television and computer monitors if not regulated. In addition, it contributes most to circular economy objectives through the restriction on the use of halogenated flame retardants in relevant parts of displays.

Option 4 - Leni has the least savings and thus contributes the least to the energy efficiency-related objectives.

7.Preferred option

8.1. Preferred option – Why?

Option 3 - Ambitious fulfils the criteria in Article 15(5) of the Ecodesign Regulation and Article 16(2) of the Energy Labelling Regulation (see Section 3.1) and will achieve the objectives as set out in Section 3 in the best way.

Building on option 2, option 3 brings the most savings and, in terms of avoiding loopholes, is the most robust. Therefore, it is considered the preferred option and results in the following overall net savings and impacts versus the BAU option in 2030:

·Electricity savings of 39 TWh/yr and GHG emission abatement of 13 MtCO2eq/yr, i.e. 2.66 % of the Commission’s 2030 target for final energy consumption savings (30%) and 1.22 % of the Commission’s 2030 target for GHG-emissions savings (40%);

·Savings on annual end-user expenditure of EUR 15 bn;

·Additional 84 kt of plastics could be recycled instead of being incinerated. 20 kt/year of halogenated flame retardants would not enter the EU market.

·Scope and ambition level aligned with technological progress and global minimum energy efficiency requirements in other economies.

With respect to signage displays, the fact that this option does not include minimum on-mode efficiency requirements means that there will only be limited impact on compliance cost (i.e. only for product testing but not for redesign or production).

8.2.REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

This section describes how the preferred option is expected to improve the efficiency of the existing measures.

Given that there is no relation between increased efficiency and product price (see section 5.2.2), it is assumed that industry, wholesale and retail revenue will not be effected by the measure. While there will be cost for industry to comply with the revised ecodesign and energy labelling requirements, the absence of a link between price and increased energy efficiency implies that those costs are absorbed as part of the normal competition pressure in this market. This also means that acquisition cost for consumers are assumed to remain the same, and that the energy cost is the only cost driving consumer expenditure as compared to the baseline. 
[Table 11](#_Ref509396610)
 gives an overview of the increment in cost and as compared to the baseline.

Table 11: Increment in costs, revenue and administrative burden

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Implementation date | 2030 | 2040 | Comment |
| Acquisition costs (EUR million) |  | 0 | 0 | No correlation between acquisition cost and efficiency could be identified. Energy costs decrease. |
| Energy costs (EUR million) |  | 6 000 | 10 000 |  |
| Consumer expenditure (EUR million) |  | 6 000 | 10 000 |  |
| Industry revenue (EUR million) |  | 0 | 0 | There is no increase in revenue for industry, wholesale and retail related to the proposed measure |
| Wholesale revenue (EUR million)) |  | 0 | 0 |  |
| Retail revenue (EUR million) |  | 0 | 0 |  |
| Administrative burden dealers (EUR million) | 0.6 |  |  | The increase in administrative cost is due to the introduction of the rescaled energy label and the database requirements |
| Administrative burden suppliers (EUR million) | 3.9 | 0.09 | 0.09 |  |
| Administrative burden EU (EUR million) | 0.09 | 0.009 | 0.009 |  |

The administrative burden for dealers and suppliers is related to the introduction of the rescaled energy label imposed by the new Energy Labelling framework Regulation.

8.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

The main monitoring element will be the tests carried out to verify compliance with the ecodesign and energy labelling requirements. This monitoring should be done by MS market surveillance authorities to ensure that requirements are met.

The main indicator for evaluating the impact of potential ecodesign and energy labelling regulations is the achievement of a market improvement towards electronic displays with a smaller environmental impact.

For products subject to energy labelling, the main tool to monitor this indicator is the product registration database
[116](#footnote116)
 that will show the progress of products placed on the market towards the highest classes.

An analysis of the products on the market (sales figures, performance, etc.) will determine if the shift towards more resource efficient products has happened as estimated, in particular based on the following sub-indicators, which reflect the general and specific objectives:

·Percentage of sales for products in the top energy efficiency classes on the label;

·Speed with which products move towards the higher efficiency classes on the label;

·Reduction of the electricity consumption and related GHG emissions of electronic displays;

·Increasing the economic savings for European consumers;

·Improving the regulatory effectiveness and efficiency of the regulation;

·Compliance with the energy efficiency requirements, i.e. maximum EEI for the different product categories;

·Compliance with the circular economy requirements, in particular:

-Restricting the use of halogenated flame retardant in the plastic parts most relevant (in size/weight/volume);

-dismantling of components relevant for the WEEE Directive;

-information requirements to facilitate reparability.

The evaluation should assess these indicators in line with the originally anticipated impacts of the policy option.

A review will be necessary in such a quickly evolving market sector within three years after entry into force. Such a review should focus in particular on the following aspects:

1.the need to update the scope and the definitions of the Regulation;

2.the need to adapt requirements as result of new available technologies, such as HDR, 3D mode, and resolution levels above UHD-8K (33,177,600 pixels), or new standards.

3.the appropriateness of setting specific on-mode energy efficiency requirements for signage displays or other displays not covered in this respect;

4.different or additional requirements to enhance durability and to facilitate repair and reuse;

5.different or additional requirements to improve dismantling at end of life and recyclability including on material efficiency aspects, such as targeting other possibly problematic flame retardants that may hinder the recyclability of plastics;

6.resource efficiency requirements for displays integrated into products covered by other Ecodesign regulations implementing Directive 2009/125/EC and in any other products in scope of Directive 2012/19/EU.

As per the Energy Labelling framework Regulation, the energy labelling delegated regulation shall be reviewed if the Commission estimates that 30% of the units of models placed on the Union market fall into class A, or if 50% of those units fall in classes A and B. The availability of data from the registration database should inform such an assessment, where necessary augmented with additional market data.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref1)
     
       
    [Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R0642-20130912)
    . OJ L 191, 23.7.2009, p. 42–52
:   [(2)](#footnoteref2)
     
       
    [Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02010R1062-20170307)
    . OJ L 314, 30.11.2010, p. 64–80
:   [(3)](#footnoteref3)
     
       
    [Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee, The Committee Of The Regions And The European Investment Bank - A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM/2015/080 final.](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1520582754591&uri=CELEX:52015DC0080)
     (Energy Union Framework Strategy)
:   [(4)](#footnoteref4)
     
       
    [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business COM/2015/550 final. 28 October 2015](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1520582577280&uri=CELEX:52015DC0550)
    . (Deeper and fairer internal market)
:   [(5)](#footnoteref5)
     
       
    [Ecodesign impact accounting – Overview report for the European Commission DG Energy, VHK December 2016](https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/eia_ii_-_overview_report_2016_rev20170314.pdf)
:   [(6)](#footnoteref6)
     
       More reliable sales and stock data is now available and industry has collaborated.
:   [(7)](#footnoteref7)
     
       This is exemplified by the statement of CECED (industry trade association) in the Consultation Forum from 2012: “CECED disagreed with a view that the development of TVs has not been influenced by the existing EU Regulations. It explained that industry had been working on new energy efficient technologies already during the consultation phase preceding the adoption of the Regulations.”
:   [(8)](#footnoteref8)
     
       As an example, Japanese companies lost the TV market because they were too late with investing in LCD/LED technology. The more fast-moving a sector is, the higher the risk of being ‘left behind’.
:   [(9)](#footnoteref9)
     
       This target is currently under examination in the ordinary legislative procedure: there is no sign that final agreement will be on a level of ambition lower than that proposed by the Commission.
:   [(10)](#footnoteref10)
     
       
    [Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009L0125)
    . OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10 (Ecodesign Framework Directive)
:   [(11)](#footnoteref11)
     
       
    [Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU.](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017R1369)
     OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 1 (Energy Labelling Framework Regulation)
:   [(12)](#footnoteref12)
     
       
    <Study on the impact of the energy label – and potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions - London Economics and IPSOS, October 2014>
:   [(13)](#footnoteref13)
     
       Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2125 of 30 November 2016 on guidelines for self-regulation measures concluded by industry under Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; OJ L 329, 3.12.2016, p.109
:   [(14)](#footnoteref14)
     
       Television monitors are, in short, televisions without a tuner for receiving/decoding broadcast signals. The definition in the current regulation is however far more specific and has become a source of legal uncertainty as it could also apply to computer monitors.
:   [(15)](#footnoteref15)
     
       
    [Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32010R0066)
    . OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1 (EU Ecolabel Regulations)
:   [(16)](#footnoteref16)
     
       Commission Decision 2009/300/EC of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions (notified under document number C (2009) 1830) (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 80, 28.3.2009, p. 3; [validity prolonged until 31.12.2019 by 
    [Commission Decision (EU) 2018/59 of 11 January 2018](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0059)
    ]
:   [(17)](#footnoteref17)
     
       About a hundred television models have been certified with an Ecolabel. Requirements include e.g. absence of the most toxic flame retardant (FR) additives, design facilitating repair and dismantling at end of life.
:   [(18)](#footnoteref18)
     
       Council Decision 2013/107/of 13 November 2012 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Union on the coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment. OJ L 63, 6.3.2013, p. 5–80
:   [(19)](#footnoteref19)
     
       Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on energy efficiency, OJ L315 of 14.11.2012, p.1
:   [(20)](#footnoteref20)
     
       GPP criteria can be found at 
    <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm>
:   [(21)](#footnoteref21)
     
       Technical background study GPP: JRC, Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria for Computers and Monitors, JRC-IPTS and Öko-Institut e.V, November 2016.
:   [(22)](#footnoteref22)
     
       
    [2016-2019](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1520583455760&uri=CELEX:52016DC0773)
:   [(23)](#footnoteref23)
     
       Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Closing The Loop - An EU Action Plan For The Circular Economy (Circular Economy Initiative)
:   [(24)](#footnoteref24)
     
       
    [Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products.](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32010L0030)
     OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1.
:   [(25)](#footnoteref25)
     
       
    <http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm>
     [(]( ()
    <Paris Agreement>
    <)>
:   [(26)](#footnoteref26)
     
       
    [Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions Closing The Loop - An EU Action Plan For The Circular Economy](Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions Closing The Loop - An EU Action Plan For The Circular Economy ) 
    (Circular Economy Initiative)
:   [(27)](#footnoteref27)
     
       
    <https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en>
     (ETS)
:   [(28)](#footnoteref28)

     
       Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU. SWD/2015/0139 final - 2015/0149. (Impact Assessment Energy Labelling Regulation)
:   [(29)](#footnoteref29)
     
       Equivalent to more than the primary energy consumption of a country like Slovenia in 2012.
:   [(30)](#footnoteref30)
     
       In 1990, only 23% of EU households had more than one TV; in 2010, 80% of households had two TVs, with video content usually watched also on other displays types, such as computer monitors.
:   [(31)](#footnoteref31)
       From Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) to Light Emitting Diodes (LED) to self-emissive panels
:   [(32)](#footnoteref32)
     
       To calculate the average on-mode power consumption for the current energy label (indicated in Watts), a testing methodology is in use (according to standard IEC/EN 62087-3:2015) that measures the average power consumption when playing a specific test video, with conventional broadcast images in Full HD, from material produced in SDR.
:   [(33)](#footnoteref33)
     
       Competing industry standards were consolidated only from 2016.
:   [(34)](#footnoteref34)
     
       Articles appearing in the press in 2015, particularly in the USA, revealed the results of tests performed by NRDC that resulted in a few models inappropriately activating "low power modes", thus providing misleading power use information 
    <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/samsung-tvs-appear-more-energy-efficient-in-tests-than-in-real-life>
     . The same test loop is used for compliance control in the EU.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref35)
     
       Action to combat the circumvention as possible "in principle" (e.g. by a smart display capable of recognising the typical pattern of the current test video) was discussed in the consultation Forum in 2014.
:   [(36)](#footnoteref36)
     
       EN 62087:2016 is being updated, specifically with provisions to avoid circumvention and take into account new features such as HDR (High Dynamic Range) and higher resolution (UHD, 8K).
:   [(37)](#footnoteref37)
     
       Electronic signage displays (signage displays in the rest of the document) are displays, generally "resembling" a television but possibly far bigger and with a different size ratio (proportion of horizontal versus vertical size); common in train stations and airports to display timetables, they are nowadays uses far more widely. See also Annex 8.
:   [(38)](#footnoteref38)
     
       Laptops, tablets or even smartphones can be used to watch video content, although the displays integrated in these products would be better tackled within the review of the Regulation on computers.
:   [(39)](#footnoteref39)
     
       The Arena cinema in the Sihlcity shopping centre in Zurich is probably the first in Europe where the projection screen is replaced by a video wall of signage modules, using microLED technology. The manufacturer claims 10 times the peak brightness of projectors using 96 modules with UHD 4k HDR and 3D image capability.
:   [(40)](#footnoteref40)
     Tecnology progress not necessarily has energy efficiency as goal, as energy use is on the customer mostly with little transparency in the lack of appropriate labelling or information requirements.
:   [(41)](#footnoteref41)
     
       Correct management of these displays at their end of life as WEEE is desirable, as once disposed of, it is virtually impossible to distinguish a television from a monitor of from some types of signage displays. Lack of the same ecodesign requirements for such displays leads to improper and/or inefficient treatment.
:   [(42)](#footnoteref42)
     
       In February 2014 a German court judged that products marketed as computer monitors, if advertised showing video images, fall under EU Energy Labelling Regulation 1062/2010 (and, consequently, also under 642/2009).
:   [(43)](#footnoteref43)
     
       As a consequence of the higher luminance, e.g. between 500 to 700 cd/m² for indoor versions compared to 300-350 cd/m² of a domestic TV.
:   [(44)](#footnoteref44)
       Siddharth Prakash et al., Einfluss der Nutzungsdauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informationsgrundlage und Entwicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz“, study for Umwelt Bundesamt (UBA) Texte/11/2016, Feb. 2016.
:   [(45)](#footnoteref45)
     Pilot projects have demonstrated the possibility of avoiding use of flame retardants by removing the power supply from inside the TV (e.g. https://corporate.bestbuy.com/fewer-chemicals-same-fire-safety-for-insignia-tvs/)
:   [(46)](#footnoteref46)
       The efficient use and recycling of critical raw materials is a priority of the EU circular economy action plan.
:   [(47)](#footnoteref47)
       Consultation Forum 8 October 2012, see Annex 5.3
:   [(48)](#footnoteref48)
     
       Obligations in the directive include LCD panels, plastics containing Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR), batteries, electrolyte capacitors, printed circuit boards greater than 10 cm2, and other components containing substances hazardous for the operations, the workers’ health or the environment.
:   [(49)](#footnoteref49)
     
       Private communication from the European recyclers association: https://www.eera-recyclers.com/
:   [(50)](#footnoteref50)
     
       Early TVs were using thermionic valves, that could heat up and even explode.
:   [(51)](#footnoteref51)

     
       Assuming 56 million TVs sold in the EU-2015 with a plastic back-cover weighing 2 kg (EERA 2013 mentions 1.6 kg for a 33" display), half of displays using back-cover with HFR/ATO with a HFR concentration of 25 wt.% (EFRA-2014 mentions 20-30%) with a 5 wt. % ATO (EFRA 2014 mentions 3-5%). Thus the HFR/ATO use is 56x2x0.5x0.3= 16.8 million kg= 16.8 kt. Including also PC-monitors the total is estimated at a rounded 20 kt annually.
:   [(52)](#footnoteref52)
     EFRA European Flame Retardants Association was, until 2017, a sector group of the European Chemical Industry association CEFIC. The new CEFIC sector group for flame retardants is PINFA (Phosphorous, Inorganic and Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association), representing 32 producers of non-halogenated flame retardants (
    <https://www.pinfa.eu/about-pinfa/members/>
    ).
:   [(53)](#footnoteref53)
       See e.g. Peeters et al (2013), Wagner et al (2017) on recycling of PC/ABS from LCD TV back covers
:   [(54)](#footnoteref54)
     
       Some compounds of this group are restricted by RoHS legislation because of their demonstrated toxicity and hazardousness.
:   [(55)](#footnoteref55)
     
       Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (2017/C 298/02), OJ, C298, p. 14, d.d.8.9.2017
:   [(56)](#footnoteref56)
     Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88
:   [(57)](#footnoteref57)
     Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), tolerating maximum concentration values of 0,1 % by weight in homogeneous materials.
:   [(58)](#footnoteref58)
     Plastics are checked as described in the EN 50625-1 "General treatment and depollution standard" to verify that the plastics contain less than 2.000 ppm of Bromine restricted substances.
:   [(59)](#footnoteref59)
     According to EERA, about 10% of annual production of EEE plastics are delivered to specialized recycling facilities in Europe to be recycled as Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR) plastics. 3/4 of the WEEE plastics have been exported outside Europe and no data is available about the final amount recycled as PCR plastics.
:   [(60)](#footnoteref60)
     Polymers containing brominated flame retardants, for example, increase the specific weight, so separation techniques based on weight can be used.
:   [(61)](#footnoteref61)
     Presence of the now restricted PBB and PBDE is possible e.g. in electronic displays produced before their ban, but less than 0,1 % in weight is allowed in the recycled yield.
:   [(62)](#footnoteref62)
     
       Toxicity refers to the degree to which a toxic substance may harm a (human) cell or organism, while ecotoxicity refers to the potential for biological, chemical or physical stress, affecting the entire ecosystem.
:   [(63)](#footnoteref63)
     
       This issue had been already highlighted in the previous Impact Assessment (Sec(2009) 1011 final) but at that time alternative solutions appeared insufficient and possible action to limit them had been judged not yet feasible.
:   [(64)](#footnoteref64)
     
       See. e.g. 
    <http://ecostandard.org/category/flame-retardants/>
    http://greensciencepolicy.org/topics/flame-retardants/
:   [(65)](#footnoteref65)
     
       See positions expressed by EERA, EURIC and ECOS in particular in Annex 5.
:   [(66)](#footnoteref66)
     
       Non-halogenated FRs are e.g. aluminium hydroxide and phosphorus-based (PFR) and recent tests show that, for example, PFR PC/ABS compounds can be (closed loop) recycled.
:   [(67)](#footnoteref67)
     
       Two EU-funded projects are currently investigating these areas: CloseWEEE (http://closeweee.eu) and PolyCE (
    <https://www.polyce-project.eu>
    )
:   [(68)](#footnoteref68)
     Apple has completely eliminated BFRs since 2008, Sony from selected products since 2013, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-need-flame-retardants-in-electronics/
:   [(69)](#footnoteref69)
     
       PolyCarbonate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene.
:   [(70)](#footnoteref70)
     
       UL94 V0
:   [(71)](#footnoteref71)
     
       Commission Decision 2009/300/EC of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions, OJ L 82, 28.3.2009, p. 3
:   [(72)](#footnoteref72)
     
       Nevertheless, some manufacturers have already eliminated all HFRs, even from circuitry and use metal for the housing and stand.
:   [(73)](#footnoteref73)

     
       The Joint Research Centre Directorate B, Circular Economy & Industrial Leadership unit, has compiled a multi-level approach for assessing the reparability and upgradability of products, which will be tested on televisions and is expected to be completed by the end of 2018.
:   [(74)](#footnoteref74)
     
       EU brands integrating display panels of Asian production into premium "home entertainment" products are Bang&Olufsen (DK), Loewe and Metz (DE). EU-based assemblers of mass-market televisions and monitors are wholly or partially owned by Chinese display manufacturers. Some have ‘strategic partnerships’ with South-Korean companies such as Barco (BE) or Solari (IT) that also use Asian panels.
:   [(75)](#footnoteref75)
     
       
    [www.digitaleurope.org](http://www.digitaleurope.org)
:   [(76)](#footnoteref76)
     
       In Eurostat's SBS (Structural Business Statistics), NACE Rev. 1.1, there is a category 'Repair of electrical household goods' (G5272) that mentions for 2007 that there are over 50,000 businesses and an added value of 5.4bn Euro. The share of TVs and other displays will be at the most 20%, i.e. 10,000 repair shops with 1 bn euro turnover. It can be assumed that most of these enterprises combine repair with retail. So at the most we can assume one employee per enterprise dedicated to repairs, probably less. All in all, EU employment in TV repair is estimated at 5000 to 10,000 jobs. 
    <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Computer_and_personal_and_household_goods_repair_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2>
     gives data at a higher aggregation level (NACE Rev. 2, Division 95) and confirm the order of magnitude of the above estimate. Average personnel costs are between €23k and €33k per employee, which indicates a business revenue of at the most €50k per employee, i.e. overall EU repair revenue €0.25bn to €0.5bn per year (less than 2% of sales value).
:   [(77)](#footnoteref77)
     
       
    [Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2012.197.01.0038.01.ENG)
    . OJ L 197 of 27-07-2012, p 38 (WEEE Directive)
:   [(78)](#footnoteref78)
     
       
    [Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT)
     OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47 (TFEU)
:   [(79)](#footnoteref79)

    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-17_en_0.pdf>
     [(]( ()
    <Better Regulation Toolbox>
    <)>
:   [(80)](#footnoteref80)
     Cmparable to the cost of a nuclear power plant.
:   [(81)](#footnoteref81)
     
       Hans-Paul Siderius. Setting MEPS for electronic products. Energy Policy 70: 1-13
:   [(82)](#footnoteref82)
     
       The data was taken from the product information sheets that the current Labelling regulation requires supplier to make available to dealers. Such a burden (of keeping data available by suppliers and of collecting the spread data for review purposes) will be eliminated once a product registration database as from Regulation 2017/1369, art. 12 will provide all data centrally.
:   [(83)](#footnoteref83)
     
       A portable USB-Type-C ready 15.6” LCD/LED model.
:   [(84)](#footnoteref84)
     
       The EEI is calculated with a "linear" curve in the current regulations, whilst a tangent hyperbolic is proposed, that cannot be superposed.
:   [(85)](#footnoteref85)
     
       It is likely that only very little HD displays may be produced by that time.
:   [(86)](#footnoteref86)
     
       For instance and for 40”HD, in the new EU proposal an A is <15.7W. For a B you add 5.6W (so <21.3W), etc.  For India, the best is a 5-star and that is for energy on-mode<39.1W; a 4-star is 39.1+6.2 = <45.3W etc.  In South Korea the labelling has a very large range, from the best class called “Energy Frontier” at <23.2W down to the 5th grade 291.8W.
:   [(87)](#footnoteref87)
     
       Namely CEN, CENELEC and ETSI
:   [(88)](#footnoteref88)
     
       Personal Communication from. Robert Harrison, member of the IEC standardisation committee and 
    <https://www.nrdc.org/resources/secret-costs-manufacturers-exploiting-loopholes-governments-tv-energy-test>
:   [(89)](#footnoteref89)
     
       Requirements laid down in the current Regulation 642/2009 are based on a "linear" regression line
:   [(90)](#footnoteref90)
     
       Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008, with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode, and networked standby, electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment.
:   [(91)](#footnoteref91)
     
       For instance, no requirements on on-mode power are foreseen for the special purpose displays mentioned but they will be subject to requirements on maximum (networked) standby and off-mode power use as well as product information and circular-economy aspects.
:   [(92)](#footnoteref92)
     
       100 cm2, or about 6-7 inches of diagonal
:   [(93)](#footnoteref93)
     
       The WEEE Directive lists a number of components, some of which are present in electronic displays, to be removed before further treatment, such as shredding.
:   [(94)](#footnoteref94)
     
       Back covers and stands are generally the biggest and most cost-effective plastic parts to recycle and the presence of FR, particularly HFR, limits recycling opportunities.
:   [(95)](#footnoteref95)
     
       USB PD specification extends the power and voltage specifications up to 100 W and 3 voltages. "Universal" EPSs are coming to the market with multi-USB-ports being able to charge different devices, even at a time and at different voltage levels and using a unified reversible connector (USB Type-C): 
    <http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/>
:   [(96)](#footnoteref96)
     
       Association of the European adhesive and sealant industry, http://www.feica.eu
:   [(97)](#footnoteref97)
     
       An earlier version of the ecodesign proposal was notified to the WTO with comments from South Korea, the USA and Japan.
:   [(98)](#footnoteref98)
     
       As a consequence of the high luminance such as 500 to 700 cd/m² for indoor versions, compared to 300-350 cd/m² of a domestic TV
:   [(99)](#footnoteref99)
     
       E.g. https://www.apple.com/lae/environment/safer-materials/
:   [(100)](#footnoteref100)
     It should be noted that Directive 2011/65/EU (the RoHS directive) mentions that the Ecodesign Directive should enable “specific ecodesign requirements to be set for energy-related products which may also be covered by this Directive. Directive 2009/125/EC and the implementing measures adopted pursuant to it are without prejudice to Union waste management legislation” (recital 13).
:   [(101)](#footnoteref101)
     
       For many models the difference between equivalent UHD and HD is up to 20% (see VHK database)
:   [(102)](#footnoteref102)
     
       A free-rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an under provision of those goods or services. (Baumol, William (1952). Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)
:   [(103)](#footnoteref103)
     
       See annex 7 for detailed explanations on the model used.
:   [(104)](#footnoteref104)
     
       European TV market 2007 – 2012 Energy efficiency before and during the implementation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling regulation. TopTen, October 2013. The study can be found at: 
     [http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/European\_TV\_market\_2007%E2%80%932013\_July14.pdf](%20http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/European_TV_market_2007%E2%80%932013_July14.pdf%20%20)
:   [(105)](#footnoteref105)
     
       No eco-design requirements for on-mode would be set, as minimum standards may possibly block new products coming to market over the coming years.
:   [(106)](#footnoteref106)
     
       During manufacturing certain cleaning agents are used, such as Nitrogen Trifluoride and Sulfur Hexafluoride with a global warming potential (GWP) of over respectively 17200 and 24000 the GWP of CO2. Mitigation of the use of compounds with high GWP or regulating the energy use in the production phase cannot be tackled for display panels as production is not in Europe and compliance control is not feasible.
:   [(107)](#footnoteref107)
     
       PolyMethylMethAcrylate
:   [(108)](#footnoteref108)
     
       The production cost of displays is largely determined by a few components like screen panels, backlight units (BLUs) and electronics (e.g. video boards). Screen panels are produced by only a dozen manufacturing plants, mostly in mainland China. The screen cost increases with the area. Backlight units are also an area of strong global competition. Video boards are electronics and thus ‘governed’ by Moore’s Law (every 2 years the number of ‘transistors’ is doubled, at the same price, same size and half the energy consumption). Furthermore, the production costs determine only a part of the market price as marketing strategies play the major role and determine large price differences for similar products between the US, China, India and Europe.
:   [(109)](#footnoteref109)
     
       Philips was the last one but gave up its share in a joint venture with the Taiwanese TPV
:   [(110)](#footnoteref110)
     
       Building a display-panel manufacturing plant requires an investment of ca. €10bn. This is comparable to the investment in a nuclear power plant. Unless the EU wants to follow the US example and give a €3bn subsidy to one Taiwanese company to build a €10bn plant on its soil, it is unlike to have that manufacturing again in the EU. Further, the unit sales for electronic displays are declining, so there is also no commercial incentive for such an investment.
:   [(111)](#footnoteref111)
     
       Signage displays are a B2B market, meaning the consumers can recuperate VAT; VAT is thus not included.
:   [(112)](#footnoteref112)
     
       SWD(2015)/319 final, European Commission, 15.7.2015, Brussels.
:   [(113)](#footnoteref113)
     
       Industry associations recently issued a Joint Position Paper on implementation aspects of the database http://www.ceced.eu/dam/site-ceced/PUBLIC-WEBSITE-ASSETS/MEDIA-RESOURCES/Position-Papers/2017/2017---11---Joint-Industry-Position-Paper-on-EPREL/2017%20-%2011%20-%20Joint%20Industry%20Position%20Paper%20on%20EPREL.pdf
:   [(114)](#footnoteref114)
     
       Metz GmbH, Bang&Olufsen and Loewe, EU display manufacturers, do not qualify as SMEs.
:   [(115)](#footnoteref115)
     
       A joint market surveillance project funded by the European Commission that checked compliance of televisions on the EU market. For more information see: www.compliantv.eu
:   [(116)](#footnoteref116)
     
       According to the Energy Labelling framework Regulation, products have to be registered in a product registration database from 1 January 2019 onwards, for all products belonging to models placed on the market after 1 January 2019; and by 30 June 2019 for products belonging to models placed on the market between 1 August 2017 and 1 January 2019

[Top](#document1)

Table of Contents of the Annexes (1/2)

Annex 1
   Procedural information …………………………………………………….1

Annex 2:
   Stakeholder consultation …………………………………………………....9

Annex 3:
   Who is affected and how? …………………………………………………18

Annex 4:
   Analytical model used ……………………………………………………..20

Annex 5:
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forums ………………………...28

Annex 6:
   The market of electronic displays ………………………………………..58

Annex 7:
   The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Framework ……………………...75

Annex 8:
   Existing Policies, Legislation and Standards on electronic displays …...79

Annex 9:
   Evaluation of current regulations (REFIT) ……………………………...90

  

ANNEXES

Annex 1
   Procedural information

1.Lead Directorates General (DG), Decide Planning/CWP references

DG GROW and DG ENER are Co-Chef de File for Ecodesign. DG ENER is the lead DG for this product group. DG ENER is Chef de File for energy labelling.

The Decide number of the underlying initiative for the review of ecodesign requirements for electronic displays is 2014/ENER/011 (no inception impact assessment because this is initiative predates the requirement).

The Decide number of the underlying initiative for the review of energy labelling for electronic displays is 2013/ENER/066 see above for the IIA & OPC.

The following DGs (Directorates General) were invited to contribute to this impact assessment: ENER (Energy), SG (Secretariat-General), GROW (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs), ENV (Environment), CNECT (Communications Networks, Content and Technology), JUST (Justice and Consumers), ECFIN (Economic and Financial Affairs), REGIO (Regional policy), RTD (Research and Innovation), CLIMA (Climate Action), COMP (Competition), TAXUD (Taxation and Customs Union) EMPL (Employment), MOVE (Mobility and Transport), TRADE (Trade) and the JRC (Joint Research Centre) were consulted on the draft IA in May 2018.

2.Organisation and timing

The review of the ecodesign and energy labelling for televisions and television monitors started in 2012 and a review study was conducted for this purpose. This evaluated the impact of the current legislation, as reported in Annex 9, also looked at the technological and economic evolution of the sector and at stakeholders' views. Results from the study have been used directly as input to the analysis model of Annex 4.

The review process ran far longer than usual, with four Ecodesign Consultation Forums (in October 2009, October 2012, December 2014 and in July 2017; see Annex 5), while usually only one is needed. This happened largely because of political scrutiny at College level which led to long delays and the subsequent need to take into account technology evolution, market changes and new features introduced for TVs and displays.

The last Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019, adopted in November 2016, confirmed that televisions and electronic displays continue to be a priority product group. Furthermore, the recent Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 stipulated that televisions are one of the five priority subjects for which the Commission should adopt a new energy label regulation in accordance with the said overall regulation by 2 November 2018.

Article 19 of the Ecodesign Directive foresees a regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adoption of implementing measures. Article 17 of the Energy Labelling Regulation foresees consultation of the energy labelling expert group before the adoption of a delegated act. Subject to qualified majority support in the Regulatory Committee and after scrutiny of the European Parliament and of the Council, the adoption of the measures by the Commission is planned for the end of 2018.

3.Consultation of the RSB

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) delivered a negative opinion on a draft of the Impact Assessment on 18 June 2018 after the meeting on 13 June. The draft report was subsequently improved, based on the Board’s Opinion and the “Horizontal issues for discussion” sent to DG ENER on 8 June 2018, and was resubmitted to the Board. A positive 2nd opinion with reservations was issued on 4 July 2018, containing further recommendations for improving the report The table below shows how those two sets of recommendations are addressed in this revised Impact Assessment report.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| RSB Opinion | Where and how the comments have been taken into account |
| (B) Main considerations |  |
| (1) The report does not clearly draw conclusions from the evaluation(s) to support the problem definition.            It is unclear about the success of the previous measures and the discontinuity in projections. | Information has been added to section 1.1 and to the problem definition which gives more information on how the evaluation process fed into the problem definition. Information has also been added to section 6.  In Annex 2 a description of the full review process, started in 2012, with even preliminary discussion in 2009, is now presented. The results of the preparatory study/evaluation are summarised as well as the evolution of the need to act  Information on the savings achieved has been added to the introduction, see pages 3-4, as well as at the end of the new section 1.5 on need to act and in Annex 9.  Sections 1 and 2 in particular have been enriched and content partially reorganised to better describe the success of the current Regulations in reducing energy consumption and the need to act to capture the relevant future potential savings that, otherwise, would be missed in a BAU scenario. |
| (2) The report is not precise enough on the content of the options and does not sufficiently explain future developments in prices and energy savings.               It contains factual and numerical errors, which do not provide the necessary guarantees for the choice of the preferred option. | Section 6.1 illustrates the methodology and key assumptions in respect to prices.  A graph in this same section (Figure 18) illustrates the expected progress in terms of populating the highest energy classes.  In the specific market sector of electronic displays, the evolution of prices has no demonstrated correlation with energy efficiency improvements. Moreover, for the same efficiency class, the cost of new products tends to decrease. This is clarified in sections 6.4, 6.6.1 and in Annex 6.  The values in the tables related to the Ambi scenario have been corrected (see Annex 4, tables 4.4 and 4.5), however no change in future projections resulted for inputs. |
| (3) The report does not integrate circular economy aspects comprehensively and in a way which is consistent across ecodesign products. It does not impact assess them either. | See new information added to sections 2.3, 6.2.3 and Annex 15. It is also explained that while circular economy aspects were not specifically impact assessed, they were discussed at the Consultation Forums (2012 – 2017). |
| (C) Further considerations and adjustment requirements |  |
| (1) The report should clarify whether horizontal and/or product specific evaluations were conducted to prepare this initiative.            In addition, it should clarify what the expectations were of the original legislation, to what extent the results deviate from them, and what are the lessons to draw for this.        Key conclusions should directly feed the scope and problem definition. In particular, the report should explain very clearly why the predicted savings on energy consumption in 2025 are now 27% lower than what was predicted in previous impact assessment from 2007. | The 2012 Review study was specifically on TVs and also covered monitors and signage.  Additional details evaluations and discussion with stakeholders along a process lasting over 6 years (including 4 Consultation Forums, a previous impact assessment approved by the IAB, a public consultation and WTO notification–Ecodesign only on a previous draft proposal) have been added to Annex 2.1.    Clarifications have been introduced in section 1.1 with a graph extended beyond 2025, better showing that the predicted and now achieved savings exceed predictions by about 7%)). It has been clarified how the lack of accuracy in the previous preparatory work was due to an unprecedented evolution of the sector during the preparatory work and in the lack of sales/stock data (now available and reliable).  Section 1.1 now better illustrates the situation and explains that real savings calculated on more reliable 2017 data show that projections to 2020 are in fact 7% better than predicted. |
| (2) The report should better explain the scope of the initiative and why it adds (only) signage displays.    The description of the options should become more precise.    The report should be clearer about what elements that have already been agreed upon and how stakeholder views shaped the options and influenced the choice of the preferred option.  Any divisive issues between stakeholders should be better explained. | Information has been added to section 2.2 “problem of outdated scope” to better explain the current scope and the proposed future scope, which covers computer monitors and signage displays as well as TVS.  Text has been added to section 5.2 to give more details on the options.    Annex 5 gives information on what aspects were discussed, and possibly agreed upon, by stakeholders in the Consultation Forum meetings (also summarised in Annex 2).  Stakeholder views have been added throughout section 5, see also Annex 2 section 4. |
| (3) The report should provide a more thorough analysis of the circular economy dimension of the initiative.  The limits to the approach need to be more transparent. The report should in particular expand on the impacts on the health and safety of the use of flame-retardants. The report should present the views of the different stakeholders and explain how it addressed them. | See answer B 3 above. A new section on “Effects on health” has been added to Annex 15, also summarised in section 6.2.3.  Stakeholder views are set out in 5, measure 5. |
| (4) The report should explain the evolution of the baseline in more detail. In particular, it is currently not clear why the ongoing trend of increasing energy efficiency seems to stop in 2024.          Errors in the impact analysis need to be corrected. In particular, inconsistencies across tables on the energy efficiency of the ambitious scenario need to be resolved. Assumptions around this scenario should be better substantiated.  The international comparison of ecodesign limits gives the impression that the proposed EU ecodesign limits are less ambitious than those of US, India and Korea. This issue should be better explained and the figure, if necessary, revised | See new text in section 5.2.1.  Figure 1 (previously in Annex 8) shows a comparison between the projections in the preparatory study of 2007 (up to 2025) and current projections (up to 2030). The trend to increasing energy use continues beyond 2025 but no prediction is available which is why the graph appears to stop.      The tables have been corrected to avoid any incorrect data interpretation. The two values spotted in table 4.4 were the result of the retroactive application of the modelling, with no consequence on the forecast for 2020    The previous graph for comparison of eco-design limits has been replaced by 3, more relevant graphs: see figures 11 (Proposed EU Ecodesign limits for 2020, 2022, 2024 compared to best performance grades in the US, India and Korea), 12 (Proposed Labelling top class compared with non EU energy efficient top class displays) and 14 (Proposed label classes compared with non-EU labelling schemes for a 40" (44dm2) HD display). These show that the proposed ecodesign limits are not less ambitious than those of US, India and Korea |
| (6) The monitoring and evaluation section should be strengthened to reflect how progress in this specific product group will be assessed. | The section has been integrated, particularly answering the question on "main indicators" to proof the success of the measure. |
| (7) This report should be streamlined as far as possible with the impact assessments accompanying the other proposals in this package of proposals for implementing legislation regarding ecodesign and energy labelling. It requires in particular that the specific characteristics of the product come out more clearly in the different sections of the impact assessment. | The structure of the report and the annexes has been harmonised as far as possible with the other impact assessments and further explanations of the specificities of TVs and monitors have been added to Annexes 6 and 14. |
| Horizontal Issues |  |
| 1)    Evaluation of how product regulations have worked is not systematic. | See answer to B1 |
| 2)    The need to act is not always clear. | A new section 1.5 has been added. |
| 3)    The approach to defining energy labelling bands for specific products does not seem consistent. | Information has been added to section 1.2. |
| 4)    The reports are not transparent about what elements have already been agreed upon (and on what basis), and what is left open for political decision, i.e. what is to be assessed in an impact assessment. | See information added to section 5.1. |
| 5)    The addition of circular economy requirements appears artificial | See answer B.3 above. |
| 6)    There is no critical discussion whether the applied methodological approach (MEErP) is consistent with the extension of the framework | See new information in section 6.1 on the methodology used. |
| 7)    The approach to a range of issues going beyond energy efficiency as such – new testing methods, scope, exceptions – is not explained for all product groups | See for example problem definition 2 |
| 8)    The assessment of some impacts is unclear, e.g. as regards the employment effects, potential cash-flow problems and business revenues | See section 6 on assessment of options |
| 9) The choice of the preferred option is not always sufficiently well justified with the presented analysis. | See section 8.1 |
| 10) As the ecodesign and energy labelling proposals are to be adopted in a package, information about contributions from particular product groups need to be presented systematically and in ways that allow for comparisons. | See section 8.1 |
| RSB Overall (second) Opinion 04.07.2018 – Positive with reservations | Where and how the comments have been taken into account |
| (B) Main considerations |  |
| The Board acknowledges the improved coverage of circular economy aspects and a better description of the consultation process. However, the report still contains significant shortcomings that need to be addressed. As a result, the Board expresses reservations and gives a positive opinion only on the understanding that the report shall be adjusted in order to integrate the Board's recommendations on the following key aspects.  (1) The report does not sufficiently distinguish between energy savings from technological changes that were the result of the current regulation and those that would likely have happened without it. Because of a similar issue in the analysed future scenarios, the effects of the proposed measures is likely to be overestimated.  (2) There are inconsistencies and errors in data in the report and annexes. Although this does not undermine the choice of preferred option, it puts into doubt the evidence supporting the intervention. | Additional text has been included in section 1.1.            The modelling has been checked and modified, and the revised data has been added to the report and the annexes where appropriate, in particular in Sections 6 and 7 of the main report and Annex 4. |
| (C) Further consideration and recommendations for improvement |  |
| (1) The report should present more evidence or analysis to distinguish the effects of autonomous technological progress from those of the current regulation. This is also of importance to establish an appropriate baseline. The current baseline assumes that energy savings for monitors will stop in 2018 and for televisions in 2027. The report should justify this assumption in a sector with strong technological progress (which is the argument to leave classes A and B of the proposed energy label empty). | Additional text has been added to Sections 1.1 and 5.2.1 on the baseline option. |
| (2) Numerical errors persist. The energy saving potential and greenhouse gas reductions presented in the graphs in the report are not consistent with the data in annex 4. Moreover, the corrected figures in the annex are not internally coherent. This should be fixed with adequate explanation for the non-expert reader to understand. Solid justification for the initiative depends on robust energy savings estimates. | The modelling has been checked and modified, and the revised data has been added to the report and the annexes where appropriate, in particular in Sections 6 and 7 of the main report and Annex 4. |
| (3) The report presents the options in more detail. However the report should be clearer on the rationale between the ecological option ('Eco') and the ambitious option ('Ambi'). The report should be more transparent on the implications on health and safety of maintaining flame retardants in the 'Eco' option, despite their serious toxicity, ecotoxicity and threat to the health of workers in the recycling industry. The report should explain the necessity of an option excluding signage displays from the scope of Energy labelling given the large consensus among stakeholders on the need to address signage displays. | Additional justifications have been added to section 5.2.2, page 33 on signage displays and section 5.2.2, page 34 on halogenated flame retardants. |
| (4) More specific indicators have been identified regarding monitoring. The report should provide information on how often progress will be assessed and it should also refer to the next review or evaluation planned or required by the parent legislation. | Text of Section 9 in the main IA report has been updated. |
| (5) The attached quantification tables of the various costs and benefits associated to the preferred option of this initiative need to be adjusted to reflect changed estimations of costs and benefits. | The relevant tables have been adjusted where appropriate as per the updated modelling results. See Annex 3. |

4.Evidence, sources and quality

This impact assessment builds on the previous version that had been approved by the Impact Assessment Board on 4/9/2013. For this deep review and update, the main supporting studies were as follows:

·Review study 2012
[1](#footnote2)

·Study assessing consumer understanding of a draft energy label for electronic displays
[2](#footnote3)
 (2017)

·Evaluation of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives SWD(2015) 143 final
[3](#footnote4)

JRC studies were also relevant I particular on "circular economy" aspects such as durability, recyclability and flame retardants (see References in Annex 17). An external consultant was used to examine specific technical aspects.

Energy-relevant data about over 400 televisions on the market and other displays was also analysed
[4](#footnote5)
.

The Commission also established a dataset (see Annex13 for last dataset used) containing information about the environmental performance of electronic displays in support of the possible ecodesign and energy labelling measures, to support a proper ambition level and to reflect recent technology developments. The dataset was based on energy data been provided by industry representatives and integrated with additional data collected from official documentation of industry on the WEB. The different data sources have been compared to fine tune technology progress evolution and trends and update the impact assessment.

Based on these studies and this preparatory work, the Commission drafted the policy options presented in this Impact Assessment.

Stakeholder input received during the above review studies, the four Consultation Forums and the consultation on the Inception Impact Assessment for the Energy Label were also been taken into account.

Annex 2:
   Stakeholder consultation 

This Annex gives a brief summary of the consultation process. Details are given of how and which stakeholders were consulted. In addition, it explains how it was ensured that all stakeholders’ opinions on the key elements relevant for the IA were gathered.

There has been extensive consultation of stakeholders during the review studies, and before and after the Consultation Forum meetings. Further external expertise was collected and analysed during this unusually long process. The results of four stakeholder consultation forums are further described in this section.

1.Review study, evaluation and stakeholder consultations 

In the period observed by the original preparatory study of 2006/2007 for the 2009 regulations and until 2008, the average energy consumption of displays did not decrease (see figure 2.1, from the 2012 preparatory study) and new technologies such as LCD panels with LED backlighting were considered just only a niche market. Since that time, the rapid development and market adoption of this technology and other energy saving technologies resulted in industry-led energy efficiency improvements faster than had been originally anticipated, with not efficient technologies voluntarily abandoned (such as "plasma" technology) by industry.

The new process of reviewing the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations on televisions and television monitors started in 2012 when stakeholders in the Consultation Forum agreed with the Commission that the existing regulations needed to be revised. EU and international stakeholders and Member State experts were consulted from the very beginning of the review work. Furthermore, displays other than televisions and television monitors, such as computer monitors or digital photo frames were included in the first Ecodesign Working Plan 2009-2011 (as ENER Lot 3) and possible measures were discussed at a Consultation Forum meeting on 8 October 2009.

The Review study was completed in August 2012. It provided the Commission with technical and market data used to evaluate the existing 2009 television regulations and to support the development of the new ecodesign and energy labelling proposals for electronic displays. Furthermore, market and technical data was acquired through several bilateral and multilateral meetings with stakeholders (in particular with DigitalEurope and EERA) from 2013 to 2017.

The review work included:

·analysis of power consumption of the products per unit of screen size for the various levels and label classes, in order to reassess minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) and energy classes and comparison with other non EU legislation for MEPS or voluntary labelling;

·discussion of the impact of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations to that date, with a historical review of the market changes over the previous five years;

·an overview of the key issues that required consideration in the context of reviewing and revising the Regulations;

·discussion of scope of coverage and definitions, technology trends and product features (i.e., screen size, LED back lit LCD displays, 3D, smart products, automatic brightness control, fast start and stand-by);

·an overview of the existing ecodesign requirements and an analysis on test data for televisions;

·a brief discussion of the measurement methods.

Among the different aspects that emerged from the data collection, studies and review , the following are the most relevant in this context:

·test standards and possible “defeat devices” (gaming);

·Signage displays, a new market and out of scope starting to emerge on the market;

·Auto Brightness Control (ABC) started to emerge as a feature; unprecedented technology progress in the area of display panels was observed;

·Ultra High Definition (UHD) was starting to come to the market in "premium" products, possibly involving a higher energy use; Monitors without "an included tuner" were increasingly used to watch video content;

·a linear limit, as in the current Regulations, provides an advantage to the biggest displays; (the weight of components not depending from the display size is smaller) and a misleading signal to customers;

·additional needs to for justifying the urgency of update the existing test standard and compliance control methods in order to prevent "defeat devices" in new "smart" products;

·need to provide a more realistic energy efficiency calculation for the biggest displays, in light of the trend to increase size and eliminating what appearing as a kind of privileged treatment;

·need to improve treatment of displays under the WEEE Directive form displays, by making disassembling/dismantling quicker and more effective and improving the yields of recyclable materials;

·the existing test standard IEC 62087, based on measuring the energy use of a television or other display when inputting from an external player a video test loop made of a collection of typical broadcast content from broadcasters worldwide, appeared already as possibly prone to "gaming", i.e. "smart" displays could detect the typical luminance test pattern and modify their energy use patterns to give misleading results.

2.Working document and Consultation Forum

The Commission services prepared Working Documents with ecodesign and energy labelling requirements which were circulated to the members of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum for the meeting on 8 October 2009. New working documents, based on the results of the Review Study 2012, were circulated to the members of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum for the meetings on 8 October 2012 and 10 December 2014. The last version was circulated and discussed at the Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting of 6 July 2017. The Ecodesign Consultation Forum represents all EU Member States and EEA countries, together with industry associations and NGOs in line with Article 18 of the Ecodesign Directive. The Working Documents and the stakeholder comments received in writing before and after the Consultation Forum meetings were posted on the Commission’s CIRCA system. Minutes of the Consultation Forum meetings can be found in Annex 5.

3.Results of stakeholder consultation during and after the Consultation Forums

The 2012 review study was first discussed with stakeholders during a Consultation Forum on 8 October 2012 (see minutes in Annex 5.3).

The proposal then presented was based on the findings that had already emerged at that stage: a rapid evolution of TV technology, the introduction of new types of TVs, demand for improved picture quality, as well as strong competition between manufacturers.

A majority of stakeholders, including Member States, were in favour of a review of the Regulations, with increased stringency in Ecodesign, the use of the same formula in the Labelling regulation, widening the scope to include computer monitors and signage displays, and not providing an advantage to the biggest displays. Some Stakeholders already asked for the introduction of "non-energy" requirements in Ecodesign and the use of flame retardants was signalled as hindering recycling.

An overwhelming majority of Member States and NGOs agreed on a proposed extension of the requirements to electronic displays other than TVs, including but not limited to computer monitors and digital photo frames, with manufacturers requesting exceptions for specialised displays with distinct characteristics.

The majority of stakeholders accepted the proposed approach for regulating on-mode power demand of electronic displays and were in favour of a proposal that was based on a logarithmic regression line
[5](#footnote6)
.

A majority of stakeholders were in favour of including in the proposal requirements on non-energy related aspects, including recyclability. At the same time they noted a need for proper measurement methods and questioned the enforceability of such requirements.

Results of the CF of 2014: The proposed ecodesign requirements for electronic displays were generally supported by Member States and stakeholders. A new Consultation Forum was held on 10 December 2014 (Minutes in Annex 5.2) with an improved ecodesign proposal including a first set of material efficiency requirements in the light of the "Circular Economy" strategy
[6](#footnote7)
 adopted in the meantime. Stakeholders, however, suggested in the meeting to suspend the preparation of the labelling proposal because of the ongoing review, at that time, of the Energy Labelling framework Directive
[7](#footnote8)
.

Proposed resource efficiency requirements were supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders. Some specific requirements, however, criticized by industry representatives, were withdrawn from the draft proposal to avoid non-cost-effective burdens on the industry.

The working documents fully took on board comments expressed by Member States and stakeholders at and after the Consultation Forum meetings of 8 October 2012 and of 10 December 2014 (and thus differs in a number of aspects from the Commission’s original proposal as contained in the original working documents prepared for the consultation process).

Based on these inputs the Commission started reviewing the already approved 2013 Impact Assessment (see Annex 10) for the Ecodesign Regulation of electronic displays. Shortly after, the internal procedure was stalled again until the Commission adopted its Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019
[8](#footnote9)
 where the revision of the implementing act for electronic displays is mentioned as one of the priorities. It also reports the situation that indeed the Ecodesign measure had been through the inter service consultation (ISC) and WTO notification and that a primary energy saving of 83 TWh was expected. In accordance with the “default” primary energy factor (PEF) of 2.5 set in the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) this means a saving of (at least) 33 TWh/year in electricity for the year 2030.

Public consultation

A previous version of the proposed ecodesign measure was notified in the "better regulation" web portal on 21 December 2016. 16 comments were received, mostly from manufacturers' representatives. A number of "position papers" were sent by manufacturer representatives to the Commission and members of the Consultation Forum as well.

Result of public consultations, WTO opinions and manufacturers positions expressed:

·the draft proposal included in the scope electronic displays "integrated" in a number of products subject to the WEEE Directive and possibly having a wide diffusion in future, such as computers refrigerators, vending machines, etc. however all manufacturers expressed concern about having different eco-design regulations on different components of the same product and clearly voiced a preference for "vertically" regulating the products (i.e. by including in the review of Ecodesign for a specific product the requirements for integrated displays, if any).

·Industries and associations of the chemical industry were against the specific wording in the draft proposal, referring to specific technology or techniques to glue components: this was mostly due to an unclear wording that has been corrected.

·Mandatory labelling of displays for presence or absence of mercury or cadmium was criticised, voicing for a mandatory requirement only for signalling "presence" of such dangerous substances.

·Environmental NGOs and recycling industries welcomed the proposal possibly banning use of welding or firm gluing for components to be removed at the recycling plant.

A further Consultation Forum was held on 6 July 2017 (Annex 5.1) where a new labelling proposal, in line with the new Energy Labelling framework Regulation 2017/1369 was discussed. The meeting also discussed a possible new label layout and the indicators to include, following the results of an on-going consumer understanding survey
[9](#footnote10)
.

During the Consultation Forum, the "disputed" aspects of the Ecodesign proposal were discussed with stakeholders and in particular:

·"vertical" regulation: the Commission announced to stakeholders the clear preference of industry for regulating displays in the context of the product where they are integrated into;

·Use of glue: the Commission presented a new wording for the dismantling requirement that found industry relieved but the recycling industry disappointed;

Plastic marking and flame retardants: the Commission proposed to set a limit for marking of plastics parts only above 50 grams; the comments of the main stakeholders on key features of the Commission services’ Working Document received during and after the Consultation Forum can be summarised as follows:

·Scope: stakeholders agreed that integrated displays should not be covered, but agreed to the inclusion of signage displays.

·Energy Efficiency Index: stakeholders were concerned that the label be easily understood and support for the proposed double scale showing the energy efficiency in HDR mode was therefore mixed;

·Energy label classes: as the consumer study was still on-going discussion was to some extent limited, but DE, IT, NL, SE, ANEC/BEUC, DIGITALEUROPE, ENEL, and EED said it would be complicated to explain to consumers the relevance of the standardised EPS;

Circular economy aspects: EURIC, supported by EERA and FEAC, stressed the need for better design to facilitate recycling and fully capture the 'circular economy' potential.

4.Open public consultation

An online public consultation (OPC)
[10](#footnote11)
 took place from 12th February to 7th May 2018, with the aim to collect stakeholders' views on issues such as the expected effect of potential legislative measures on business and on energy consumption trends.

The OPC contained a common part on Ecodesign and Energy labelling, followed by product specific questions on (i) refrigerators, (ii) dishwashers, (iii) washing machines, (iii) televisions, (iv) electronic displays and (v) lighting.

1230 responses were received of which 67% were consumers and 19% businesses (of which three quarters were SMEs and one-quarter large companies). NGOs made up 6% of respondents, and 7% were "other" categories. National or local governments were under 1% of respondents, and 0.25% came from national Market Surveillance Authorities.

The countries of residence of the participants were predominantly the UK (41%) and Germany (26%), with a second group of Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Spain comprising together some 17%. Nine other Member States comprised another 9.5% of replies, but residents in 12 EU Member States gave either zero or a negligible number of responses. Non-EU respondents comprised around 5% of replies.

It should be noted that of the 1230 respondents, 719 (58%) replied only to lighting related questions as part of a coordinated campaign related to lighting in theatres. This was considered to significantly distort the replies, and for some questions the “lighting respondents” were removed from the calculation. Furthermore, as respondents did not have to reply to all questions, a high rate of “no answer” was observed (from 5% - up to 90%), in addition to those who replied “don’t know” or “no opinion”. To reflect better the actual answers, the number of “no answers” was deducted and the remaining answers treated as 100%.

4.1.Overall results

The first part of the questionnaire asked general questions aimed at EU citizens and stakeholders with no particular specialised knowledge of ecodesign and energy labelling regulations.

When asked regarding whether their professional activities related to products subject to Ecodesign or Energy Labelling, two-thirds (67%) of business respondents replied in the positive, and one-third (33%) in the negative, with no "no answer" replies. Almost the same percentages for "yes" (63%) and "no" (37%) were given when the business entities were asked whether they or their members knew of the Ecodesign requirements for one or more of the product groups concerned by the questionnaire, although this was reduced to 50% "yes" and 50% "no" when asked about Energy Labelling.

In reply to the question: "In your opinion, does the EU energy label help you (or your members) when deciding which product to buy?" 56% of the total respondents to the OPC gave a positive answer. Of the remainder, around 22% cited "don't know or no opinion", 3% did not reply and 19% responded negatively.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48002.jpg)

However, looking only at the ‘lighting respondents’ (526 of the total 1230), 73% of them replied ‘No’, ‘Don't know or no opinion’, or ‘no answer’. Given that the ‘lighting respondents’ mainly focused their comments on a narrow issue related to the current exemption for theatre lighting under ecodesign, the replies of these respondents to the earlier questions cannot necessarily be considered representative. Therefore, the calculation was also done with “lighting respondents” removed. Then, 84% of the respondents to the OPC agree that the EU Energy Label helps when deciding which product to buy. Of the remainder, around 7% cited "don't know or no opinion" or did not reply and 9% responded negatively.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48003.jpg)

When asked where they would look to find additional technical information about a product, respondents listed the following (more than one response permitted), ranked by the options provided: manufacturer's website (82%), the booklet of instructions (50%), [the Ecodesign] product information sheet (47%), internet user fora (39%), the retailer's website (18%), and consumer organisations (10%).

Some 63% of the participants were in favour of including Ecodesign requirements on reparability and durability, and 65% of respondents considered that this information should be on Energy Labels.

Regarding the reparability of products, participants valued mostly as "very important" to "important" (in the range 62%-68%)
[11](#footnote12)
 each of the following: a warranty, the availability of spare parts, and a complete manual for repair and maintenance. The delivery time of spare parts was rated as 56% "very important" to "important".

Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Consultation [SMEs < 250 employees]

One of the aims of the OPC was to gather specific information on SMEs' roles and importance on the market, and to acquire more knowledge on how the aspects related to the environmental impacts of these six product groups were considered by SMEs.

The quali-quantitative evaluation of the effect on SMEs of potential regulatory measures for the environmental impact of all six product categories gave the following results. Approximately 10.5% or replies were from SMEs. These SMEs were involved in the following activities (most popular cited first): (i) product installation, (ii) rent/ leasing of appliances, (iii) repair, (iv) retail of appliances or spare parts, (v) final product manufacture/ assembly, (vi) sale of second-hand appliances, (vii) "other" activities, and (viii) manufacture of specific components.

In the OPC responses, SMEs reported that they were aware of the Ecodesign and EU Energy Label requirements applicable to the products they were involved in. Nevertheless, SMEs mostly declined to respond (90%) or replied in "don’t know/ no opinion" (6%) when asked about the potential impact on their businesses per se, or potential impacts on SMEs compared to larger enterprises, of the introduction of resource efficiency requirements in the revised Ecodesign and Energy Labelling regulations. Of those SMEs who gave an opinion, some 3-4% considered that the impacts could be negative, and around 1% thought that the effects would be positive.

4.2.Responses relating specifically to electronic displays

The consultation was mainly intended to gather opinions about information to be included on a redesigned energy label for displays regarding energy efficiency and durability, intended to be clear, self-explanatory and helpful to consumers making purchase choices.

Electronic displays are a relatively complex product. The label has to be designed in order to make instantly comparable different products with possibly very different technical characteristics. The power use of a display is influenced by its screen area, its resolution level, its backlighting technology, possibly the use of high dynamic range (HDR), refresh frequency and more. The label needs to be clear and not excessively crowded by information not crucial for comparison (more complete information can be found in an associated information sheet).

To help assess the user relevance of the information to be put on the label, the following questions where asked and the responses are illustrated below:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| A new standard for improving image quality is HDR (High Dynamic Range). A display may even double its power use when displaying content filmed and broadcast in HDR. Would the indication of the power consumption in HDR mode be a relevant information for your purchase choice? |  |
| The current energy label for televisions indicates the "annual" energy consumption of the television. What assumptions should be used if the same indication will be provided in the new label (for televisions, computer monitors or other displays)? |  |
| One of the components more likely to fail in electronic products is the power supply (e.g. because of electric surges). Would you prefer a display with a standardised external power supply (as a USB with type-C connector) that you could easily buy and replace yourself? |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Measured average power used when "on" in normal mode (Watt) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Measured average power used when "on" in HDR mode (Watt) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Diagonal size (cm/inches) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Resolution (horizontal x vertical) in pixels |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Nickname of the resolution level (e.g. UHD, WQHD, …) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: The power supply is external and standardised (e.g. USB Type-C) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Presence of a TV tuner (i.e. to distinguish a TV from another display) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Presence of a processor (i.e. to distinguish a smart TV) |  |
| What information would you like to have clearly provided when you buy an electronic display (television, computer display or similar)?: Network interfaces (i.e. WiFi, RJ45, etc.) |  |

5.Impact Assessment (IA)

An IA is required when the expected economic, environmental or social impacts of EU action are likely to be significant.

The data collected in the review studies, see Annex 1.4, served as a basis for the IA. Additional data and information was collected and discussed by the IA study team with industry and experts, and other stakeholders including Member States.

This impact assessment builds on the previous version that had been approved by the Impact Assessment Board on 4/9/2013 (see Annex 10). In light of the rapid technology evolution, an update of the Impact Assessment was then deemed necessary, based on updated data, provided by industry and representing the market situation in July 2014. This new database of energy data was the evidence basis for re-visiting the draft Commission proposals, in particular the energy efficiency index calculation and the parameters to be set as minimum requirements and for establishing the energy class boundaries.

Annex 3:
   Who is affected and how?

This annex explains the practical implications of a potential ecodesign and energy labelling measures based on implementation of the preferred policy option, see Section 6.

1.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE

The ecodesign regulation will apply to the manufacturers, importers and authorised representatives of displays (televisions and monitors) in the scope of the regulation.

The energy labelling regulations will apply to the suppliers and the dealers of displays (televisions and monitors) and signage displays in the scope of the regulations

They will need to with comply the ecodesign requirements summarised in the table below:

Summary of the Ecodesign requirements

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48016.jpg)

2.SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

For the preferred option, 
[Tables](#_Ref509410225)
3.1 and 3.2 present the costs and benefits that were identified and assessed during the impact assessment process.

Table 3.1: Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) as compared to the baseline– Preferred Option

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48017.jpg)

  

Annex 4:
   Analytical model used

1.GENERAL INTRODUCTION

General data availability for the scenario analyses of electronic displays is not good. For sales, stock and prices of displays there are GfK-studies periodically acquired by e.g. NGOs such as TopTen. For energy efficiency, however, data have been compiled ad-hoc, either by DigitalEurope or by researchers such as Intertek, Bob Harrison, CLASP and VHK.

For the impact analysis the dataset for 2017 was added. The reliability of most data could be checked by various sources and ultimately the data were confirmed by stakeholder consensus in various stakeholder meetings, bilateral and plenary. Employment impacts are derived from revenue per employee, again checked against reported revenue totals for the sector and anecdotal information from annual reports of individual manufacturers.

As regards the various monetary rates, the impact assessment study conforms to the MEErP. This means e.g. that (industrial) energy prices were assessed from Eurostat data and for future projections an escalation rate of 4% was used. All prices and costs are expressed in Euro 2010, calculated with historical inflation rates and a 2% inflation for future projections. For investment-type considerations, a discount rate of 4% is used.

In addition, a sensitivity analysis was carried out that calculates energy costs and consumer expenditure at an escalation rate of 1.5%. In short, this means that electricity tariffs in 2030 are not €0.36/kWh, but €0.24/kWh (all in Euro 2010).

For greenhouse gas emissions, the emission rate (in kg CO2 eq./kWh) does vary over the projection period in line with overall EU projections as indicated in MEErP.

2.MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODEL

The impact assessment uses a stock model developed by VHK first in the context of the MEEuP 2005 methodology and then further developed in the MEErP 2011 and the VHK EIA-studies for the Commission. It has been used successfully, i.e. to the satisfaction of stakeholders and Commission, in over 20 impact assessment studies for Ecodesign and Energy Labelling studies where VHK assisted the Commission.

The stock model has been specifically developed and paid for by the Commission (DG GROW and DG ENER) and is thus subject to the same intellectual property provisions as other contract work for the Commission.

Over the years, as it was part of various Commission contracts it has been scrutinised by many Commission officials of various DGs as well as experts from various stakeholder groups (industry, Member States and NGOs).

3.MODEL STRUCTURE

The general structure of the model follows the format and conventions as laid down in the VHK EIA-study
[12](#footnote13)
. The following figure gives an illustration of the parameters used. The parameters with extension BAU are used for the baseline scenario. The parameters with extension ECO are used for one or more policy options (ECO1, ECO2, etc.).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48018.jpg)

Figure 4.1: Structure of core calculation

The model is built in a spreadsheet, using a 1 year time step. Every parameter name corresponds to an Excel sheet. Auxiliary sheets are added for the calculations.

In the case of electronic displays, 4 scenarios are calculated: BAU, ECO, Leni(ent) and Ambi(tious) scenarios all with televisions, monitors and signage displays in the scope.

The tables hereafter give the details of main inputs and outputs of the model.

4.INPUTS

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 4.1. Inputs scenario calculation | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Economic and energy data split-up by display type in scope | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SALES, in million units | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV No NA ('standard') | 26 | 29 | 34 | 46 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TV LoNA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 21 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TV HiNA ('Smart') | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 21 | 39 | 60 | 69 | 70 |
| subtotal TV | 26 | 29 | 34 | 47 | 74 | 42 | 52 | 60 | 69 | 70 |
| PC Monitor | 10 | 13 | 17 | 22 | 25 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| Signage display | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| total | 36 | 42 | 51 | 69 | 99 | 58 | 70 | 77 | 86 | 87 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| STOCK, in million units | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV No NA ('standard') | 215 | 259 | 323 | 356 | 327 | 231 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TV LoNA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 98 | 164 | 109 | 27 | 0 |
| TV HiNA ('Smart') | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 98 | 241 | 411 | 581 | 700 |
| subtotal TV | 215 | 259 | 323 | 357 | 364 | 426 | 497 | 520 | 608 | 700 |
| PC Monitor | 13 | 69 | 100 | 129 | 172 | 130 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 |
| Signage display | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 21 | 31 | 31 | 30 |
| total | 443 | 586 | 745 | 842 | 901 | 990 | 1114 | 1169 | 1345 | 1528 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| SURFACE/UNIT, in dm²/unit | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV average all types | 10 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 28 | 43 | 51 | 59 | 68 | 92 |
| PC Monitor average | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 25 |
| Signage display average | 16 | 18 | 21 | 32 | 46 | 71 | 84 | 97 | 113 | 151 |
| sales wt.'d average | 9 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 24 | 37 | 46 | 53 | 62 | 83 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| SURFACE EU28, in km² | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV all types | 21 | 29 | 40 | 69 | 102 | 185 | 253 | 306 | 415 | 642 |
| PC Monitor | 1 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 20 | 18 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 24 |
| Signage display | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 30 | 34 | 45 |
| total | 22 | 33 | 48 | 82 | 122 | 207 | 287 | 353 | 469 | 711 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| On-mode specific electric power consumption of SALES in W/dm2 | | | | | | | | | | |
| TV HD: | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| BAU | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,70 | 1,27 | 0,97 | 0,79 | 0,65 | 0,44 |
| Leni/ECO/Ambi | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,70 | 1,27 | 0,96 | 0,60 | 0,35 | 0,35 |
| TV UHD/3D: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 3D/UHD% stock | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 20% | 50% | 75% | 100% | 100% |
| BAU | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,78 | 1,40 | 1,21 | 1,08 | 0,97 | 0,66 |
| Leni | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,78 | 1,40 | 1,20 | 0,83 | 0,53 | 0,53 |
| ECO/Ambi | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,78 | 1,40 | 1,06 | 0,69 | 0,42 | 0,42 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Monitor HD: | 1990 | 1990 | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| BAU | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,70 | 1,27 | 1,16 | 1,05 | 0,95 | 0,78 |
| Leni/ECO/Ambi | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,70 | 1,27 | 1,16 | 0,74 | 0,41 | 0,35 |
| Monitor UHD: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| UHD% stock | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 10% | 25% | 38% | 50% | 50% |
| BAU | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,74 | 1,33 | 1,30 | 1,24 | 1,19 | 0,97 |
| Leni | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,74 | 1,33 | 1,31 | 0,88 | 0,51 | 0,43 |
| ECO/Ambi | 8,85 | 7,69 | 7,71 | 5,56 | 3,74 | 1,33 | 1,22 | 0,80 | 0,45 | 0,38 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Signage displays | as TVs multiplied by 2. | | | | | | | | | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Standby mode electric power consumption of sales in W | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV No NA ('standard') | 8,00 | 6,25 | 4,50 | 2,75 | 1,00 | 0,23 | 0,10 | 0,05 | 0,05 | 0,05 |
| TV LoNA | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 |
| TV HiNA ('Smart') | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 6,39 | 5,00 | 4,50 | 4,00 | 3,00 |
| PC Monitor | 9,00 | 7,07 | 5,14 | 3,20 | 1,27 | 0,41 | 0,25 | 0,15 | 0,15 | 0,15 |
| Signage display | 15% of on-mode energy use | | | | | | | | | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Standby mode hours per day | | | | | | | | |  |  |
| All scenarios | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV | 6,00 | 9,50 | 13,00 | 16,50 | 10,00 | 10,00 | 10,00 | 10,00 | 10,00 | 10,00 |
| PC Monitor | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 | 4,00 |
| Signage display | 15% of on-mode energy use | | | | | | | | | |
| Note 1: For TVs and monitors average viewing hours are 4h/day. For signage 12h/day (average with wide spread). 365 d/yr. | | | | | | | | | | |
| Note 2: Until 2009 the non-viewing hours are considered standby-hours are considered a mix of passive standby (No NA) and hard off-switch (0W); in 2010 and later networked standby is considered significant and the power values are a mix of passive standby and networked standby. | | | | | | | | | | |
| Note 3: Signage displays have a high share of networked standby. It is considered that larger sizes have added complexity in that respect and thus standby is calculated as a percentage of on-mode. | | | | | | | | | | |
| Note 4: Meeting (networked) standby test data is not critical for display makers. That is why all scenarios have the same values in the model (although small differences can exist, but no specific information could be found). Networked standby can be problematic at the level of service providers overriding power management | | | | | | | | | | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Retail prices (incl. VAT, in euros 2010 per unit) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| TV | 800 | 800 | 800 | 500 | 450 | 450 | 450 | 450 | 450 | 450 |
| PC Monitor | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 |
| Signage display | 1600 | 1600 | 1600 | 1000 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 900 |
| sales wt'd average | 633 | 615 | 604 | 405 | 383 | 408 | 445 | 434 | 435 | 435 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Electricity Rates applied for displays (residential rates), in €/kwh elec (inflation corrected to euros 2010) | | | | | | | | | | |
|  | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| Default (4% escalation) | 0,18 | 0,18 | 0,16 | 0,15 | 0,17 | 0,20 | 0,25 | 0,30 | 0,37 | 0,55 |
| Sensitivity (1,5% escalation) | 0,18 | 0,18 | 0,16 | 0,15 | 0,17 | 0,19 | 0,21 | 0,23 | 0,24 | 0,28 |
| escalation rate applies from 2014 onwards (before 2014 historical prices) | | | | | | | | | | |

  

5.OUTPUTS

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 4.2. Outputs scenario calculation | | | | | | | | | | |
| OUTPUTS | per year | | | | | | | | | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| On-mode specific electric power consumption of STOCK in W/dm2 | | | | | | | | | | |
| TV HD: | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| BAU | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,72 | 2,52 | 1,64 | 0,93 | 0,77 | 0,52 |
| Leni/ECO/Ambi | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,72 | 2,52 | 1,64 | 0,87 | 0,57 | 0,35 |
| TV UHD/3D: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 3D/UHD% stock | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 20% | 50% | 75% | 100% | 100% |
| BAU | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,82 | 2,78 | 2,05 | 1,28 | 1,15 | 0,79 |
| Leni | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,82 | 2,78 | 2,05 | 1,20 | 0,85 | 0,53 |
| ECO/Ambi | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,82 | 2,78 | 1,80 | 1,00 | 0,68 | 0,42 |
| Average TVs |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| BAU | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,73 | 2,57 | 1,84 | 1,20 | 1,15 | 0,79 |
| Leni | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,73 | 2,57 | 1,84 | 1,12 | 0,85 | 0,53 |
| ECO/Ambi | 8,83 | 8,32 | 7,93 | 7,22 | 4,73 | 2,57 | 1,72 | 0,97 | 0,68 | 0,42 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Monitor HD: | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| BAU | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,06 | 2,93 | 1,25 | 1,11 | 1,01 | 0,83 |
| Leni/ECO/Ambi | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,06 | 2,93 | 1,25 | 1,00 | 0,59 | 0,35 |
| Monitor UHD: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| UHD% stock | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 10% | 25% | 38% | 50% | 50% |
| BAU | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,11 | 3,08 | 1,40 | 1,32 | 1,26 | 1,03 |
| Leni | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,11 | 3,08 | 1,40 | 1,18 | 0,74 | 0,44 |
| ECO/Ambi | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,11 | 3,08 | 1,31 | 1,07 | 0,65 | 0,39 |
| Average Monitors |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| BAU | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,06 | 2,95 | 1,28 | 1,19 | 1,13 | 0,93 |
| Leni | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,06 | 2,95 | 1,28 | 1,07 | 0,66 | 0,40 |
| ECO/Ambi | 9,51 | 8,25 | 7,64 | 7,26 | 5,06 | 2,95 | 1,26 | 1,02 | 0,62 | 0,37 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Signage displays | as TVs multiplied by 2. Leni and ECO follow TV BAU. Ambi follows TV ECO | | | | | | | | | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Stock wt'd avg of the above, all types of displays |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |
| BAU | 8,87 | 8,30 | 7,86 | 7,23 | 4,84 | 2,69 | 1,82 | 1,25 | 1,20 | 0,83 |
| Leni | 8,87 | 8,30 | 7,86 | 7,23 | 4,84 | 2,69 | 1,82 | 1,17 | 0,89 | 0,55 |
| ECO | 8,87 | 8,30 | 7,86 | 7,23 | 4,84 | 2,69 | 1,71 | 1,02 | 0,70 | 0,43 |
| Ambi | 8,87 | 8,30 | 7,86 | 7,23 | 4,84 | 2,69 | 1,51 | 0,87 | 0,62 | 0,39 |

  

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | | | | | | | | | | |
| OUTPUTS | per year | | | | | | | | accumulative | |
| EU electricity consumption (in TWh/a, of stock) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 |
| BAU | 36 | 92 | 92 | 98 | 94 | 90 | 98 | 98 | 927 | 1922 |
| Lenient | 36 | 92 | 92 | 98 | 94 | 86 | 82 | 75 | 863 | 1619 |
| ECO | 36 | 92 | 92 | 98 | 92 | 80 | 76 | 73 | 813 | 1538 |
| Ambi | 36 | 92 | 92 | 98 | 83 | 64 | 59 | 53 | 651 | 1178 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| EU GHG emissions (in Mt CO2 eq./a) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 |
| BAU | 16 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 36 | 32 | 33 | 29 | 332 | 648 |
| Lenient | 16 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 36 | 31 | 28 | 23 | 309 | 550 |
| ECO | 16 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 35 | 29 | 26 | 22 | 291 | 522 |
| Ambi | 16 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 31 | 23 | 20 | 16 | 233 | 401 |
| Consumer expenditure (in bn Euros 2010) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 |
| BAU | 30 | 43 | 54 | 43 | 53 | 60 | 73 | 90 | 619 | 1448 |
| Lenient | 30 | 43 | 54 | 43 | 53 | 59 | 67 | 78 | 598 | 1316 |
| ECO | 30 | 43 | 54 | 43 | 53 | 57 | 65 | 77 | 581 | 1285 |
| Ambi | 30 | 43 | 54 | 43 | 50 | 52 | 58 | 66 | 531 | 1144 |
| Acquisition costs (in bn Euros 2010, incl. VAT) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 |
| All scenarios | 23 | 28 | 38 | 23 | 29 | 32 | 36 | 37 | 325 | 691 |
| Energy costs (in bn Euros 2010) | | | | | | | | |  |  |
|  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 |
| BAU | 6 | 14 | 16 | 20 | 23 | 27 | 36 | 53 | 289 | 747 |
| Lenient | 6 | 14 | 16 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 30 | 41 | 268 | 615 |
| ECO | 6 | 14 | 16 | 20 | 23 | 24 | 28 | 40 | 251 | 585 |
| Ambi | 6 | 14 | 16 | 20 | 21 | 19 | 22 | 29 | 201 | 443 |
| Note that the running costs include, apart from the energy costs, 0,5 bn euro annually in repairs. Accumulative 5 bn in 10 years, 10 bn in 20 years | | | | | | | | | | |

  

6.BUSINESS IMPACTS

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | BUSINESS IMPACTS (All scenarios, revenues in bn Euros 2010. ) | | | | | | | | | | | |  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 | 2021-'30 | 2021-'40 | | EU industry | 4,0 | 2,5 | 1,5 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 10 | 20 | | Importers/ distributors | 8 | 12 | 18 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 158 | 166 | | Retails | 7,8 | 9,5 | 12,9 | 7,8 | 10,0 | 10,9 | 12,3 | 12,4 | 112 | 124 | | Total business revenue | 19,4 | 23,8 | 32,2 | 19,4 | 25,0 | 27,3 | 30,7 | 31,1 | 280 | 310 | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Employment (All scenarios, in 1000 jobs) | | | | | | | | | | | |  | 1990 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2040 |  | | | EU industry | 60 | 20 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |  |  | | Importers/ distributors | 15 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 21 | 21 |  |  | | Retails | 155 | 190 | 258 | 155 | 200 | 218 | 246 | 249 |  |  | | Total business revenue | 230 | 225 | 288 | 177 | 224 | 244 | 272 | 275 |  |  | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | na=not applicable | | | | | | | | | | | |

Figure 4.2 below illustrates the rapid improvement in average efficiency, expressed in W power input per dm² viewing surface area. The names illustrate typical technologies, starting from CRT (8 W/dm²) and plasma (9 W) before 2005. The LCD TV with CCFL backlight (around 6 ±2 W) was the dominant technology during the preparation of the current measures and indeed the 2012 Ecodesign limit (3W) was ambitious at the time. Today, for LED LCD TVs a level of 1 W/dm² is typical.

The graph shows that the efficiency improvement is expected to slow down because technologies that thus far achieved the large efficiency improvements are nearing their limits. Experts have doubts whether Moore’s law, predicting a doubling of the number of transistors per surface area every 2 years, will keep up now that chips are nearing a form factor of 5 nanometres, which is about as small as you can get with electricity. The next step could be light chips, but there is still a long way to go. The LED-backlight at efficacies of 200 lm/W could maybe still bring some 20% more, but then it is nearing its limit.

The main area where a step-change in innovation could still take place is in eliminating the loss of light in all the filters and LCD-polaroids that are blocking the LED backlight. If we could directly look at the LED-subpixels, similar to OLED but at a much higher lighting efficiency, the efficiency could probably more than double. The problem is that the flawless mass-manufacturing of millions of LED subpixels is a huge technological challenge and requires massive investments. At the moment Samsung, calling it ‘microLED’, has produced a modular video-wall product for the professional market, but energy efficiency is not (yet) impressive and pricing is obviously nowhere near consumer market pricing.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48019.jpg)

  

Annex 5:
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forums

5.1
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum on 6 July 2017

Meeting of the Consultation Forum under Article 18 of the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC on energy-related products – Electronic displays

Brussels, 6 July (10.00 - 17.30)

Participants: see "Attendance List" in Annex

1.
   Welcome and introduction

The Chair welcomed the participants to the Consultation Forum on the review of measures for electronic displays.

He gave a brief explanation of the current state of Ecodesign and energy labelling. He noted the adoption on 30 November 2016 of the Ecodesign Working Plan for 2016-2019, and the adoption of the energy labelling Regulation, which would be published on 28 July in the Official Journal of the EU and enter into force on 1 August. He noted the consequences of the new Regulation in particular as regards the rescaling of existing labels and the product registration database.

BE asked whether the Commission was considering updating the data on televisions so that requirements would not become obsolete after a short period of time. The Chair replied that the requirements were based on the most recent data available (mid 2016), and agreed that with a fast-moving product group there would always be a question about how up-to-date the data was. The Commission may further verify the data before the proposal is voted in the Regulatory Committee.

The UK asked whether the Commission could come forward with tentative dates on future meetings, noting that at least twelve remained for the rest of the year. The Chair responded that the Commission was in the process of confirming the dates and would contact Consultation Forum members as soon as they were set.

ORGALIME asked about the progress of the Steering group and sub-groups working on the product database which would have to be in place by 1 January 2019. The Chair replied that the first meeting of the steering group had been on 4 July and preliminary ideas where presented. The Commission plans to have regular meetings of the steering group to keep stakeholders involved.

2.
   Adoption of the Agenda

The agenda was adopted with no changes.

3.
   Approval of the minutes of previous meetings

The Chair noted that the minutes of the Consultation Forum of 27 March 2017 on water heaters and vacuum cleaners had been revised to include some written comments. The draft minutes were adopted.

4.
   Presentation of the proposal for possible Energy Labelling requirements for electronic displays

The Commission policy officer responsible for electronic displays gave a presentation on the proposals.

On the scope, he noted that the proposed size lower threshold for displays was the same as for Ecodesign measures (i.e. 100 cm2 or about 6 inches) but that this was up for discussion given that in very small displays the difference in energy use for different classes may be negligible. Displays with very specific uses, for example medical products that are covered by other legislation, would be entirely out of scope. Displays integrated into any other product would be out of scope as well.

CLASP suggested that increasing the minimum size requirements from 100 cm2 would prevent substantial energy savings as it would exclude 7 or 8 inches displays which are already on the market.

IT and BE noted some of the difficulties of regulating and testing smaller-sized or specialised types of screens.

AT inquired as to why digital signage displays had been excluded from the scope, and whether displays integrated into desktop computers were also excluded.

NL noted the difficulty of assessing integrated displays for energy labelling purposes, as their energy use is difficult to be isolated but encouraged the Commission to consider ways in which for Ecodesign they should be kept into scope, particularly for non-energy requirements. NL also cautioned against introducing loopholes when exempting standalone displays sold with the intention to integrate them into another product, noting that it was possible that any screen could hypothetically fall under that definition. CECED offered in response to explain to NL how loopholes could be avoided while making the exemption clear.

DIGITALEUROPE expressed their support for a limitation of the scope to include only televisions and computer displays, but suggested that the exemptions in the scope were not clear enough. They requested a general exemption to exclude integrated displays. ORGALIME expressed similar reservations on the comprehensiveness of the exemptions.

UK, and subsequently CECED, agreed that integrated displays should not be in scope of the energy labelling Regulation under discussion, both suggesting that integrated displays should be regulated through vertical measures in each relevant product file.

AT and SE, supported by ECOS, suggested that the work on signage displays had not progressed sufficiently over the course of three years, and noted that a list of next steps and a study would be welcome. SE added that it was desirable to see signage products referred to in a review clause with a date for a final proposal, arguing that difficulties relating to measurements could be overcome.

In response the Commission, citing the difference in use and characteristics of signage displays, noted that signage displays would be addressed through a separate measure and study. The Commission added that although no specific date had been set for a review, signage displays were cited in the current Ecodesign Working Plan, which meant that they would need to be considered within the 2016-2019 period. Integrated displays should be not labelled separately. Finally, the Commission noted that it will consider improving the wording relating to business-to-business screens intended to be integrated into another product after the sale, e.g. by considering CECED suggestions.

DIGITALEUROPE stated that their position continues to be that signage displays should be tackled though a separate Regulation, and that many purchasers of signage displays already took energy efficiency into account, rendering a label less useful.

In response, SE argued that many smaller businesses that bought signage displays would be assisted by an energy label. Procurement would be facilitated as well.

The Chair, noting the comments made, committed to launching a dedicated study on signage displays.

IT asked the Commission to clarify at what point it intended to review the electronic displays measure, noting that the new energy labelling Regulation indicated that labels should be set to be applicable for ten years.

The Commission explained that the framework provisions did not necessarily mean that a given Regulation could not be revised within the ten years, just that rescaling could not happen within that time. Moreover, if signage displays were to be given an energy label, this could be done as well.

The discussion moved to the Energy Efficiency Index with a specific indication for High Dynamic Range (HDR) mode. The Commission outlined the proposed formula, noting that the new framework for energy labelling establishes a clear relation between Ecodesign and Energy Labelling, as the bottom class(es) in the label have to be greyed out when Ecodesign tiers come in force and exclude from the market the less performing products.

AT noted that an energy label should be as transparent and easy to understand as possible and suggested that the Commission's proposal with a two-scale label, one for normal screen use and one for HDR, now that HDR is unknown to most, may result confusing to consumers and asked about the pace of uptake. Similarly to vacuum cleaners or to washing machines, a less prominent scale at the bottom of the label could be considered.

IT, DE, UK, DK, and NL made interventions agreeing with AT, and were supported by ANEC/BEUC, variously expressing concern about the complexity of a two-scale label, the lack of current consumer knowledge of HDR technology, the potential future developments in technology (meaning HDR technology could be surpassed), and asking for the results of consumer testing on the proposed label.

BE questioned the figures on HDR doubling the energy consumption of displays, argued that quantum dot TVs and possibly OLED technologies should be kept in scope, and suggested that the Automatic Brightness Control (ABC) compliance allowance could be increased from 10% to 15% .

NL, supported by the UK, further suggested that an option for HDR would be to have a simple identifier on the label rather than a second scale, and to incorporate HDR into the general formula for determining efficiency.

DIGITALEUROPE advised caution on assuming a high rate of technological improvements in the future, stating that without a "breakthrough" in technology, the current classes A and B being proposed would not be filled by products in the next ten years. Digital Europe supported the double scale showing the energy efficiency in HDR mode. The alternative of having to use a common formula for ecodesign and labelling with an arbitrary share of HDR (based on insufficient data availability) may exclude new products from the market.

The Korean Electronics Association (KEA) made several points, arguing firstly that the requirement to put a label on the box packaging was unnecessary; secondly, that the year of manufacture requirement ought to be removed; that the requirement to include HDR mode power consumption be removed; that the criteria for efficiency classes A-C criteria were extremely difficult to delivery; and that the proposed QR code on the label be removed as causing delays for producers. Finally, it proposed removing several symbols from the label, given the need for the simplest possible design to assist consumer understanding.

The Commission explained that consumers needed to be informed accurately about energy consumption in real usage. HDR technology is just emerging onto the market (standardisation was completed in 2016) with a still unknown pace; it is likely that sometime between 2020 and 2030 HDR will become "the" standard mode of operation. The uneven impact of HDR on energy consumption in displays, because of different algorithms used, makes it important to include it in the label. Without an indication of the impact of HDR on energy consumption, there is a risk that customers would feel misinformed about consumption in "real usage". Conversely, it is impossible at this stage to predict the share of HDR and non-HDR in typical consumption both in time (pace of uptake of the technology) and use (in a computer display for office applications it would be never used but would be used about 100% of the time with gaming applications). The Commission expert consultant added that HDR is already a standardized EU broadcast standard and is very unlikely to fade after a few years. The power usage of some televisions barely changed when in HDR mode, while it more than doubled for others. The consumer, the Commission argued, therefore has a right to know the consumption and a double scale is already used in other product groups (e.g. tyres, heating/cooling products). The Commission also explained that the label needed to be on the box for situations where retailers do not display the product outside of the box, such as in hard-discount shops (common situation for cheap computer monitors or small TVs). The Commission agreed that year of manufacturing in the information sheet could be an issue. The Commission reassured KEA that the inclusion of a QR code would not delay production.

CLASP noted that there was substantial evidence to suggest that some screen models show increased energy demand in HDR mode (some up to 130%) and argued that it was very important for the Commission to take it into account. Furthermore, the shift to quantum dot technology provides huge potential for efficiency gains. Supported by ECOS, CLASP argued that the timelines of the Regulation are not ambitious enough, now that the Commission will have to adopt a delegated act by the end of 2018.

DIGITALEUROPE suggested that variation in energy use was down to some of the products having additional functionalities rather than being inefficient, and argued against including HDR in a single formula because a regulation possibly blocking products from entering the market should be based on currently available and well known technologies.

IT, BE, and DIGITALEUROPE supported the notion that labels were not needed on packaging. PT suggested that having them on both sides may seem excessive, while NL was in favour of the proposal as it stood, arguing that shops needed to stack packaging boxes so that the label would be visible to the consumer. The UK expressed concerns about possible confusion during the rescaling period.

SE noted the importance of ensuring consumers were informed about HDR and proposed three options: firstly, the two-scale approach proposed by the Commission; secondly, weighting the formula to reflect the HDR factor; and thirdly, a secondary "scale-behind-the-scale" approach. SE argued that the wide discrepancy in efficiency of HDR technology meant that the label deserved more than simply an identifier.

BE was in favour of two different labels, one for normal mode and one for HDR when available.

DIGITALEUROPE suggested that, for boxes printed in one colour and for on-line sales, there was confusion as to where the "coloured arrow" is intended to be displayed.

The Commission argued that it was perfectly possible that consumers might buy a boxed product without first looking at the product itself, particularly for cheap products, making labels on the box important: because of the quick sales of products in "promotion", compliance control would be difficult and training of staff unsuitable. It noted SE's suggestions of options relating to HDR.

The Commission continued its presentation, outlining the proposed physical design of the label, noting various different options and potential icon designs. The understanding of pictograms by consumers and the general understanding of the label is being tested. The Commission explained some of the pictograms proposed in the label below the A-G scale, namely: presence of auto brightness control (ABC), presence of movement sensor and standardised external power supply.

On the physical design of the label, AT suggested that it may be complicated to explain to consumers the relevance of the standardised EPS, given priority on other aspects. Also the screen size measurements are too large. DE, IT, NL, SE, ANEC/BEUC, DIGITALEUROPE, ENEL, and EED held similar positions, noting that pictograms could be removed or replaced with more useful information and that the screen size measure was too large.

The UK, supported by ANEC/BEUC, noted that it was only going to comment on the label design only once the results of the consumer survey were known.

IT asked the Commission to confirm that it was testing a one-scale label with consumers.

NL asked more prominence for the crucial section of the label, i.e. the coloured scale and dimension of the class and appreciated the option of using the displays itself to show the label, recalling the possibility of apps to get additional information from the database.

DE, ECOS, ANEC/BEUC were in favour of including annual consumption figures on the label, suggesting that measurement difficulties could be overcome.

However DIGITALEUROPE urged caution, citing the difference in usage patterns between TVs and computer monitors and, should annual energy use be included, it may mislead consumers. DIGITALEUROPE stated also that it is in favour of the double scale with HDR on the label as it is the best way of communicating to the consumer and requested tolerances in the design, as printing or displaying in different media may involve some fractions of millimetres of differences in respect to the label template. On the QR code, it stated that if it was placed on the label then it should not cause production issues.

BE suggested that the QR code on the label, intended to be linked to the product registration database, could be codified to incorporate extra information, such as for example language information.

EEB asked to shrink information such as display size and resolution and to add information about durability, such as extended warranty and availability of spare parts.

DE, IT, and ANEC/BEUC warned against the risk that EPS allowances meant that the same model of display could bear two different label classes, which was undesirable. FAIRPHONE offered to provide data on EPS, recommended earlier user testing in the future, and suggested that increasing consumer understanding was partly down to industry.

There was some discussion on market surveillance considerations for software updates, with DE seeking clarification, NL suggesting that market surveillance authorities could use their public warning function, and CLASP arguing that keeping a product in the same class as when it was bought, despite software updates, seemed reasonable.

CECED asked about a better differentiation of the label, to better communicate the rescaling done and not have consumers puzzled by the lack of A-plusses. SE recognised the relevance of ABC, movement sensors and external EPS but argued that in the Ecodesign measure, if maintained as communicated to the WTO, they get an allowance, so producers have already an incentive to provide the features.

The Commission stated that the consumer survey would be wide-ranging, and that some minor adjustments may still be possible. It noted the positions of the various participants, explaining that the most critical task was to choose a design that reflected what the consumer needed to choose between comparable displays. The Commission explained that diagonal size and resolution are relevant for energy use and should be indicated not to mislead consumers. As for a possibly overcrowded label, the Commission explained that the goal would be to have all crucial information in one place, thereby better attracting the attention of the consumer who may otherwise be distracted by additional retailer's labels. As regards additional or different features to be displayed on the label, the Commission added that a part of the ongoing survey is to verify if consumers consider that other information is missing that may be necessary for making an informed choice, including the annual energy consumption or extended warranty. So the final label layout may include different information that consumers deem relevant and the shrunk screen size and resolution section. It further stated that the QR code would lead to the database where a wide range of information is available in all EU languages (with the local language automatically proposed). As regards the pictogram for the EPS, the goal is not only material savings, but, potentially, enhancing durability, as a standardised EPS would be cheaper and more easily available as a spare part.

5.
   Presentation of the proposed changes to the Ecodesign requirements for electronic displays

The Chair stated that the Commission had taken note of comments received so far (including through the WTO), and that it would present some of the changes it was considering introducing to the measure. In terms of timing, the ecodesign process would then be realigned with the labelling process.

The Commission explained that the bulk of comments so far related to the scope of the provisions, in particular to displays integrated into other products, but also to dismantling and disassembling provisions. The remaining remarks related to the ambition levels of the proposal, which risked excluding products from the market. The Commission elaborated that the aim with the scope as drafted was to avoid loopholes and to ensure alignment with the provisions of the WEEE Directive. An alternative proposed approach would be to narrow the scope to include only televisions and certain kinds of computer displays – namely, only those without processors (i.e. excluding integrated desktops). For the standby provisions, the aim was to include professional products too, although the wording would need to be adapted, including introducing a distinction between off mode and standby. It could also be considered to cover displays integrated into products "vertically" within the measure for each separate product.

DE expressed support for the "horizontal" provision in the display Regulation for displays integrated into other products as is now, provided it did not delay the Regulation. This was supported by NL, SE, EURIC, FEAD, and EEB, who noted that a horizontal measure would not overburden industry given that the requirement is limited to the extractability of a limited list of components. Moreover, the existing WEEE Directive already requires that LCD panels integrated into an appliance have to be separated.

IT gave support for horizontal measures, provided that the integrated display is clearly separable from other electronics.

BE suggested that a vertical approach may be better if more focus was put on reparability aspects.

EHI, ORGALIME, EGMF, and DIGITALEUROPE preferred a vertical, product-by-product regulatory approach, the latter noting their satisfaction with the revised scope.

EURIC, supported by EERA and FEAC, stressed the need for better design to facilitate recycling and fully capture the 'circular economy' potential: products are more and more difficult to be recycled, with less and less design for recycling taking place. EURIC defended a horizontal approach as any display has to be treated in the same way during dismantling for recycling, irrespective of the product into which it is integrated.

DIGITALEUROPE defended a vertical approach as giving more opportunities for product-specific requirements. It also requested more clarity on terminology such as welding and soldering. DIGITALEUROPE also asked the Commission to change its approach to network standby, which it argued would cause the industry to change its approach to network products.

IT argued that the energy threshold proposed for off-mode mode was not verifiable. Moreover, IT expressed support for the more recent text, although the previous text was acceptable if gluing was better defined. IT argued that requirements on time limits would be not verifiable by authorities. IT asked for clarification as to why functionality and safety provisions would be not be included in a new proposal.

The Chair requested examples from industry of where a safety exemption from the provisions was necessary. DIGITALEUROPE cited tumble driers as one example.

IFIXIT stressed that there is no confusion as welding means melting substrates of two components together, whilst soldering or brazing is a process to add a melted material to join two components. So soldering or brazing is rightly not mentioned in the current proposal. It also stressed a contradiction on Digital Europe's defence of a vertical versus a horizontal approach for the welding/gluing requirement: if tumble driers are used as the example for the need of firmly glued/welded integrated display (i.e. vertically regulated), then for televisions and computer displays this would not be necessary and hence gluing/welding should be prohibited.

TIE asked for confirmation that toys would not be in scope of the Regulation, noting that they were covered by other legislation.

The Commission continued its presentation, explaining that the proposed provisions on disassembling and dismantling derive from the WEEE Directive, which requires such requirements to be tackled 'upstream'. It noted that the wording of the proposal relating to welding and gluing was an attempt to have an easily verifiable requirement in the absence of a standard. The goal was to express the fact that the components must be quickly and easily removable from a product but an alternative wording referring to a "measurable/verifiable" effort may be more appropriate to avoid loopholes.

DE remarked that from a market surveillance perspective the regulation would need to do more than simply indicate what level of pressure needed to be applied in disassembly, but also which temperature to apply for how many seconds, which commonly available tools, which skills are needed by staff, etc.

IFIXIT expressed a preference for the original wording referring to the banning of glue and welding as necessary, arguing that it was very clear what "gluing" meant and is less clear and more difficult to verify what "reversible" or "easily reversible" means. It challenged the industry to suggest thresholds allowing for a distinction between products glued in such a way that they can be taken apart easily and those that cannot. More emphasis on dismantling is necessary as components harvesting is crucial for reuse. Gluing frequently makes repair unfeasible such as when it is used for the housing (not infrequent).

EURIC intervened in support, noting that the original proposal seemed preferable as gluing and welding pose problems for the recycling process for the safety of workers, the environment and the increasing of contamination of the waste stream, particularly PMMA boards.

FAIRPHONE, EERA Recyclables, EEB and ECOS also asked for gluing and welding to be explicitly mentioned in the text as being forbidden for the mentioned components, also because glue pollutes the recycled plastics and is an obstacle for recyclers to reach the imposed quotas of recycled materials. Welding and gluing are seen as options for "cheap", poorly designed products. Moreover, instead of asking the Commission to assess the consequences of regulating integrated displays as regards end-of-life requirements under ecodesign, the industry should itself assess the impacts on their recyclability of using integrated displays in products covered by the WEEE Directive.

NL, supported by ECOS, asked for a differentiation between disassembly and dismantling in the text, and stressed that a balance would need to be struck between making sure the product was safe while keeping it easy to disassemble and dismantle. ECOS also stated that a vertical standardisation mandate for displays is necessary, or an amendment of the horizontal M/453.

EGML expressed their support for the new Commission proposal. FEICA intervened in defence of use of glue and mentioned that research is ongoing for more compatible glue compositions making depollution and debonding possible.

BE asked more focus on reparability and argued for different requirements for integrated displays, depending on the type of equipment in which the display is integrated.

VHI supported vertical regulation for similar reasons (the core functionality and purpose of the display is relevant).

Continuing the presentation, the Commission explained some of the considerations relating to the marking of plastics and that it had mainly received requests for clarification rather than objections on the proposals relating to mercury and cadmium. It noted that it would attempt to align the requirements between the ecodesign and the energy labelling measures.

DE urged caution in setting requirements on plastic marking given the ISO standard and the difficulty of enforceability for market surveillance authorities, and suggested that "fingerprinting" for flame retardants was a possibility.

IT suggested that plastic marking needed to be "rethought", and asked the Commission to clarify where the technical documentation would be published and to consider whether it wanted mercury and cadmium content to be discouraged or simply highlighted.

BE expressed its support for plastic marking, but argued in favour of a different testing approach, noting the possibility of conducting a study on the matter in 2018.

EERA Recyclables, supported by EURIC, stated its support for complete prohibition of the use of flame retardants, noting that they largely reduce the recyclability of plastics from electronic equipement.

DIGITALEUROPE said that in principle they were not opposed to plastic marking, if it follows international standards.

Both FEAD and EURIC supported plastic marking and were in favour of provisions on mercury and cadmium.

EEB recalled that the review of the display regulation was mentioned in the communication for the circular economy in 2015, then in the Communication about the current work plan there was emphasis on the need of strengthening ecodesign in electronic products to implement the circular economy, with displays highlighted and finally the Council of environmental ministers urged the Commission to act on ecodesign, addressing resource efficiency. Besides repair, reuse and recycling are crucial for jobs creation in Europe.

As the discussion came to a close, the UK noted that its domestic industry preferred an implementation of the Regulation that was not on 1 January given the complications with sales, and EED made an appeal for the timely adoption of the Regulation.

The Chair noted that the Commission would allow until 1 September for written comments to be sent in, after which they would be analysed, the proposals and impact assessments would be finalised and taken through the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and Inter-Service Consultation, notified to the WTO, brought to the Regulatory Committee (ecodesign) and expert group (energy labelling), to be adopted on time. He committed to sending out a timetable for future meetings.

6.
   AOB

Not applicable.

  

ANNEX – Attendance List of the ECF meeting on 6 July 2017

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48020.jpg)

5.2
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum of 10 December 2014

Meeting of the Consultation Forum under Article 18 of Directive 2009/125/EC on energy-related products

Review of the

Commission Regulations on ecodesign of televisions (No 642/2009)

and energy labelling of televisions (No 1062/2010)

Brussels, 10 December 2014 (10.00 – 17:30)

Participants: See “Attendance List” in Annex

EC Participants: Staff members of ENER C3, JRC and ENV.

Welcome and Presentation

The Chair welcomed the participants and introduced the previous steps in the process reviewing the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations on televisions.

2.Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted without changes.

3.Approval of the minutes from previous CF meetings

The Chair invited participants to provide comments, if any, on the minutes of the Consultation Forum meetings on Commercial Refrigeration held on 2 July 2014 and on Electric Motors held on 29 September 2014. No comments were expressed and the minutes are adopted.

4.Working documents on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of Electronic Displays, including TVs (ENER Lot 3 and 5)

The Commission services presented the draft ecodesign requirements, after which the documents were discussed by Member States and stakeholders.

BE expressed doubts on excluding PDP, OLED and Quantum Dot displays from tier 1. Although PDP is a declining market, OLED and Quantum Dot are predicted to be more energy efficient than LCD displays. Status displays that are very little should be completely out of scope.

UK criticised inclusion in scope of picture frames, a declining market where the same functions are increasingly performed by tablets.

NL proposed not to set requirements on Tier 3, as too far in the future; a revision in four years should set further requirements.

Digital Europe (DiEu) recalled that OLED displays are only available in classes B and A. Between 2012 and 2014 CCFL displays disappeared, so the largest potential for improvement for EE has been already exploited. The industry is uncertain about the possibility of further big improvements. On status displays, DiEu highlighted the risk of overlapping measures, e.g. tackling status displays embedded in equipment already covered by other legislation.

CECED suggested to exclude status displays from the scope, as vertical regulation on several domestic appliances already covers them. For example in a fridge, a status display may avoid opening the fridge, so the energy used by a display would be largely compensated by the savings from avoiding the opening of the door.

AT commented that PDPs have far higher energy use, however OLED and Quantum Dot are emerging technologies so we should not undermine their development.

ECOS welcomed the scope extension to different displays, in particular for resource efficiency requirements. It criticized the exclusion of PDPs from Tier 1 as this could reproduce a situation similar to the halogen lamps that invaded the market and are slowing down the switch to more efficient LEDs.

Moreover, ECOS would support resource efficiency and information requirements on signage displays. ECOS would recommend also not repeating the mistake of the consultations in 2008, when industry was too cautious on EE improvement potential that finally led to unambitious targets.

ANEC/BEUC supported inclusion of PDPs from tier 1 and highlighted a possible misalignment of scope for mobile equipment (recital 9 and scope).

DiEu suggested to remove the coverage of displays into integrated desktop computers as they may be covered by the review of the computer regulation in a couple of years. Ambiguous wording, such as "including but not limited to" should be eliminated. Signage displays are b2b products, therefore not to be considered in this regulation focusing on consumer products. On network stand-by, there is no justification for tightening requirements in respect to what is already in place. Finally, the APD requirement of 4 hours since last user interaction is already fully satisfactory, so changing it is not necessary. About the easily visible switch, the details put in the draft regulation would be better placed in transitional methods and/or in a mandate for standardisation. The scope should be limited to consumer products and the scope of resource efficiency requirements should match that of the energy efficiency requirements, as in the draft text for energy labelling. Given the limited market penetration of products such as broadcast or enhanced displays, the environmental impact could be not cost-effectively addressed.

AT expressed doubts on the inclusion of medical or enhanced performance displays in the scope of information and resource efficiency requirements. Information should be limited to standard criteria as used in the past.

UK highlighted a possibly inconsistent approach when excluding OLEDs because of lack of data on energy efficiency but including them for resource efficiency requirements. The explanatory memorandum mentioned the advantages of the draft Regulations but not the cost. A UK analysis suggests there are no clear benefits compared to costs, so a robust analysis will be needed, particularly for the new resource efficiency requirements.

NL suggested a minimum area below which displays such as status or picture frames could be excluded from the scope. Although big signage displays for outdoor use are not comparable to displays in scope, the group of signage displays using PDP or LCD panels, and physically resembling a television display, should be put in scope at least for information and resource efficiency requirements. NL agreed with DiEu on integrated displays, but disagreed on the restriction to non-consumer products as the market will not be able to regulate itself. Information requirements on energy use should be provided in the same way as for other products in scope. NL suggested that signage displays should be addressed both for information and resource efficiency requirements and be covered by the labelling regulation, although the scope should be limited to indoor displays of limited size.

BE formulated a detailed suggestion for defining the scope and simplifying certain definitions. BE also expressed concerns about the risk of cheap and inefficient plasma signage displays invading the EU market, if energy efficiency is not regulated and supported the proposal of NL for labelling them.

SE supported information requirements for signage displays and invited the Commission to investigate on existing standards to gather information for enforcing requirements in a future regulation.

AT also supported information gathering on signage displays and to integrate them in the current regulation, although with different, specific requirements. On the Auto Power Down (APD) requirement, AT recommended movement sensors to shorten the too long interval of 4 hours.

DiEu recalled that the data collected and provided for analysis do not include signage displays, so inclusion of them, as requested by some stakeholders, would not be based on a factual data.

PO expressed no strong position on the scope, however expressed strong interest and support for including resource efficiency requirements, as necessary steps in this direction.

PT referred that though understanding the importance of resource efficiency requirements as a way to ensure availability of critical materials, is still reflecting if the proposed scope ((2), article1) is the better approach to tackle such concerns.

AT confirmed that, for signage displays, they would only support energy information requirements.

EEB supported the draft proposal to not give allowances for a quick/fast start option. However there is a risk of a loophole: because of the testing standards, quickstart will only be captured if it is part of the initial set-up. But if the user changes the set up later, this is not captured. So a fine tuning of the language and of the standard is suggested. Tier 2 is less stringent that the current ENERGYSTAR, so if a tier 3 is not kept, then tier 2 should be closer to tier 3 compared to what is proposed now.

DE formulated a slight simplification in the formula. Tier 3 should be relaxed, as an improvement of 50% seems too ambitious.

DiEu pointed out that, comparing the 2012 and the 2014 data, an average improvement of 15% was observed. The proposed requirements are too ambitious and would push too many products out of market. DiEU proposed alternative formulas with progressive jumps from tier to tier, going beyond 15%. UHD should be specially considered, as broadcasters are referring now to UHD phase 2, with high definition ratio and higher frame rates. If these improvements, now used in cinema, come to the consumer market, more energy will be needed. DiEu noted that ENERGYSTAR draft version 7 has an allowance of 55% for UHD for two years. Taking out Tier 3 should be considered. 

EEB considered that Tier 3 is a proposal for 2021 and adopts requirements of ENERGYSTAR v.7 in force from 2015, so seems not so ambitious. On UHD, EEB pointed out that there are already some 55" UHD TV in the US market using 75 Watt and the US EPA is already envisaging to remove the allowance in two years. EEB pointed out that resolutions beyond UHD should be included in the scope.

CEA (Consumer Electronics Association, USA) considered that it is critical to have test procedures keeping pace with the market changes and policies keeping pace with consumer patterns. A regulatory approach has to keep allowances for innovation features, including those we cannot anticipate today. UK stated that it does not want a review scheduled before tier 3 comes into force.

KEA argued that as UHD displays use a higher number of pixels needing higher energy consumption, the Commission should devise a different formula for UHD displays, until a new technology becomes available.

BE supported a third tier and expressed scepticism to give an allowance for increased definition.

DiEu considered that without allowances there is a high risk of excluding new technologies. The Energy Label should be used to let consumers chose the most efficient displays.

ECOS stated that Tier 3 is crucial for giving a long term perspective to industry. Allowances should not be given, unless scientific evidence shows they are needed. If new functionalities will be added, this could be addressed in a review before Tier 3 comes into force.

SE supported ambitious targets, no allowances for UHD and a review before tier 3 comes into force.

AT also supported Tier 3, subject to a revision before it comes into force. A review 'package' should also look at developments on OLEDS, Quantum Dots, 8K etc. AT declared scepticism on the need to introduce allowances for UHD/4k displays.

DE considered that tier 3 (reviewed as necessary) is important as a signal to industry of the targets to aim for with their next products. DE also considered that a minimum value on peak luminance may be necessary.

DiEu stressed that the regulation for displays should be aligned with those for stand-by and on-mode. APD on computer displays should be not applied as this would require major IT changes.

CLASP recalled that the tier 3 curve does not go beyond best available technologies for small screens, as the 2014 data shows.

ECOS solicited stricter requirements for simple stand-by, i.e. 0.3 W or less. ECOS drew attention to the fact that the ComplianTV project has shown that, by reducing on-mode volume in testing situations, some manufacturers are claiming results that appear far below reality. As solution, ECOS suggested a peak-sound volume ratio in testing.

DiEU considered that any changes to tests should be made in the standard and not in the regulation.

Both DiEu and BE requested clarifications on the text about 3D testing, whilst NL questioned the need for this text as 3D television has so far remained a niche market.

Commission services presented the resource efficiency aspects in the draft text, illustrating the following:

·The WEEE Directive, requires (Article 8) that Member States, ensure separate collection and proper treatment
[13](#footnote14)
 for a number of materials listed in Annex VII, some of which are typically found in televisions, computer displays, integrated desktops, etc. such as: mercury (used in CCFL backlighting), plastics containing flame retardants (e.g. BFR), LCDs and casing greater than 100 cm2 (about 6 inches), batteries, printed circuit boards (PCB), cables, capacitors, etc.

·Recital 11 of the WEEE Directive and Article 4 mention that Ecodesign requirements facilitating the re-use, dismantling, treatment and recovery of WEEE should be laid down in the framework of measures implementing the Ecodesign Directive.

·The draft measure includes a set of requirements aimed at enhancing the safe and efficient dismantling of hazardous substances and recovery of recyclable materials, assuming that a possibly marginal increase of cost at the design phase may result in a far cheaper and more effective treatment of the display at its end of life. Although future best available technologies may enable a safe removal of dangerous substances and an effective recovery of precious materials, such technologies are likely to be not affordable by most of the SMEs involved in the collection and treatment of WEEE all around Europe. Additionally, as studies by JRC have documented, a hybrid treatment, including partially manual operations before shredding, provides a far higher quality of recovered materials compared to pure shredding. The requirements proposed, consequently, aim at facilitating manual or robotized pre-treatment, to compensate the additional costs with a better recovery of the embodied energy and materials in the waste equipment.

·When, at end of life, an electronic display is disposed (so switched off and possibly broken), it is very challenging for any worker at the collection or processing site, to distinguish a television from a computer display, a medical display, a broadcast display or an integrated desktop. This will become virtually impossible once unified high-speed data/video connectors will replace the current different ones. For this reason, the ecodesign proposal widens the scope of resource-efficiency requirements to equipment not in scope for energy-efficiency aspects, assuming that no specific regulations will cover energy efficiency requirements for these products within at least the next few years.

·Extraction of key components should be possible in an cost-effective way. Information must be provided on disassembling, content of critical substances, presence of mercury, of flame retardant plastics and possibly other substances. The proposal focuses on recovery of materials with high embodied energy content (e.g. rare metals requiring increasingly enormous energy to be extracted) and aims at facilitating the development of a market of secondary materials, expectedly triggering the creation of jobs within the EU
[14](#footnote15)
 and decreasing costs for disposal paid by citizens (externalities).

The Commission services presented the draft requirements on resource efficiency, after which the proposals were discussed by Member States and stakeholders.

AT welcomed the proposed resource efficiency requirements, but cautioned against overly ambitious requirements,

EERA (European Electronic Recyclers Association) considered that brominated flame retardants (BFRs) should disappear from plastics as they pose risks to health of workers and to the environment.

MWE (Municipal Waste Europe)welcomed the introduction of the measures to facilitate end-of life treatment. Producers' responsibility is important, in particular because displays are fast-moving consumer goods that become waste only a few years after having been placed on the market. The manufacturers need to be involved and collaborate with the recycling sector, to assure that collection and extraction of valuable materials is done in a proper way, as high costs are involved otherwise.

BE also supported requirements on resource efficiency but encouraged a better formulation of the recyclability index and suggested that this information is made accessible in a centralised "products registration database", where recyclers could retrieve the relevant information many years after the product was placed on the market.

SE also welcomed the requirements, recalling that all requirements put on producers would have to be correctly used and exploited by the recycling industry. SE suggested treating cadmium and lead in the same way as mercury.

EEB strongly welcomed these requirements as an important step forward and supported the establishment of a "product registration database" to make recycling information easily available. EEB suggested to simplify certain requirements, e.g. by better defining what is recyclable.

DiEu considered that end-of-life requirements should be proportionate and should follow agreed standards. Moreover, information requirements should only cover those issues requested by recyclers and information should only be made available to qualified users.

ECOS recalled that the attempt by the Commission to establish a standardisation mandate on material efficiency was refused by CEN/CENELEC.

IT recommended a thorough analysis of these requirements against costs from the perspective of producers, recyclers and market surveillance authorities. On BFRs, IT also requested that the logo should be required even for a minimal quantity of BFR in very small parts. Finally, labelling for the presence of fluorescent lamps would be confusing and the logo should be applied to the lamps containing mercury and not to the entire display.

UK welcomed in principle the introduction of resource efficiency and end of life requirements, but cost-effectiveness needs to be kept in mind. The UK supported mercury labelling (possibly extended to cadmium) and considered that additional work on BFR labelling was needed.

CEA considered that, based on the experience of IEEE 16802 (green purchasing standard), relevant information should be agreed with recyclers to ensure the added value of the information provided and avoid overloading them with useless data

EERA pointed out that a video would not be used by recyclers.

DE welcomed the resource efficiency requirements and recommended to verify coherence with the WEEE Directive to avoid overlap. Care has to be taken that any requirements are enforceable at limited cost. DE questioned the usefulness of the recyclability index and suggested that on mercury a limit could be introduced in line with what is already foreseen in the RoHS Directive. On BFR labelling, DE supported the IT position.

AT welcomed the information requirements, which should be tailored to the different target groups (e.g. recyclers, manufacturers, consumers, authorities). Standardisation of the information is a crucial aspect.

NL also welcomed the resource efficiency requirements and endorsed previous comments on recyclability index and size of parts containing flame retardant plastics. NL disagreed with Italy on the mercury logo as it must be applied to the display as CCFL lamps are fully integrated in LCD panels. Disassembly instructions should be required by model family and not for individual models.

ECOS echoed DE, AT and NL comments on the need to provide targeted information, ideally from a centralised source such as a "product registration database" and would welcome a standardised format.

BE provided a presentation showing a higher yield, quality and purity of recovered materials when "disassembly" is used as compared to "shredding". Incentives for design for disassembly may be appropriate to stimulate a market for recycled plastics. As regards labelling, comprehensive information on additives could be added in the mould (using the relevant ISO standards) could be considered.

EEB highlighted the importance of providing information not only to recyclers and authorised repairers but also to customers/consumers.

ANEC/BEUC welcomed the resource-efficiency requirements and stressed the need of not limiting the information to professionals only.

ORGALIME expressed concerns about the resource-efficiency requirements, particularly related to enforceability and measurability.

CECED stated that it has to be ensured that additional design and information requirements on manufacturers is used by recyclers, bearing in mind that freely provided information could be sensitive.

BE supported the compulsory indication of disassembling time and plastics content. Next to the recyclability rate, a limitation on the number of different polymers, at least in big plastic parts, could be considered.

DiEu mentioned that some new displays use up to 25% of recycled plastics and recyclers have the technology to differentiate different kind of plastics, without using logos. Freely providing disassembly information to end-users may pose safety and liability risks. DiEu considered that limiting the number of plastics to be used was unacceptable.

CECED recommended that the impact assessment should include projections on which technology would be used by recyclers in 15-20 years from now.

EURIC (European Recycling Industries’ Confederation) expressed support for the resource efficiency requirements.

The Commission services presented the draft Labelling Regulation, after which the document was discussed by Member States and stakeholders.

DE recalled that today the vast majority of televisions sold are in the classes A or above, with less than 1% in classes below B. This situation is unsustainable for an additional 4 to 5 years. Moreover, computer displays would get, for the first time, an energy label and overpopulating the top classes would give the wrong signal to consumers. Therefore, DE recommended rescaling the label to A to G (with an updated formula, also for ecodesign) so that consumers would have a label that provided useful information.

NL supported the DE proposal to avoid overcrowding of the highest classes.

AT proposed to include the display labelling regulation in a package with the revision of all relevant labelling regulations in line with the outcome of the revision of the Energy labelling Directive.

DiEu supported Commission proposal as a compromise-solution, but would prefer an alignment of the labelling with the revised Directive and label format.

ANEC/BEUC endorsed the DE proposal. If not acceptable, the compromise solution proposed by the Commission would prolong the life of a label that is already "dead".

CEA mentioned that in the US the energy label is considered a success story, with a clear impact on efficiency. CEA suggested the possibility of 'dematerialising' labels by replacing them in shops with information shown on electronic displays.

EEB supported the DE proposal and recommended a formula that would provide a clear signal to consumers about the higher energy use of bigger displays. EEB also supported a "digitalisation" of the label.

SE suggested to agree on the principles of a new label lay-out now and adapt if a layout different from A-G is finally chosen. To ensure technology neutrality, no allowances should be included in the labelling proposal.

BE supported the DE proposal, without any allowances. BE asked to assess the impact of the labelling Regulation for displays on the ENERGYSTAR label for the same product group.

UK endorsed previous comments about rescaling and simplification using a single formula and aligning the display labelling with the new Directive.

IT opposed any rescaling, preferring to wait for the revision of the Labelling Directive and requested this approach to be adopted also for any other products for which a revision of labelling is in the pipeline (refrigerators, washing machines, etc.).

The Commission concluded the discussion, outlining the timeline for next steps and requested written comments to be sent to the Commission at the latest by 20 January 2015.

5.AOB

Presentation from Sweden on results of testing clear, non-directional LED lamps

SE presented a market study on LED lamps, undertaken together with BE, CLASP and ECEEE, in view of the upcoming Regulatory Committee on the draft amending Regulation of Regulation 244/2009 and 1194/2012 to postpone the coming into force of the stage 6 requirements to 1 September 2018. The main findings were that the prices of LED are falling faster than predicted while the technological development is happening faster than previously expected. Furthermore, the main obstacles such as dimmability are already addressed by some products on the market and new products such as LED-filament lamps are also appearing. SE stressed the importance of these findings for the decision on the stage 6 postponement.

The Commission thanked SE for the presentation and opened the floor for comments, noting that a discussion on the draft amending Regulation was not foreseen.

IT welcomed the study and asked for more data on the individual test results rather than just the averages. IT requested further clarifications on the three models that would have failed market surveillance testing according to the energy labelling requirements, and on products with high lumen output above 500lm on which the study contained little data.

SE agreed to provide the individual testing data. The market study was not a market surveillance exercise and so any non-compliance issues were not followed up. Products above 500lm were not chosen because these are not very common on the market.

AT reported on its PremiumLight testing project and confirmed the observation that LEDs of well-known brands performed quite well. Nonetheless, the LED-filament lamps show novel problems such as a changed light distribution compared to an incandescent light bulb. In addition, problems such as flicker remain an issue.

CLASP added that in the appendix of the market study photometric plots are shown, given an indication of the light distribution also of LED-filament lamps.

DK welcomed the study and mentioned that the results are in line with similar testing undertaken in Denmark.

The Commission requested DK to share these results with the Consultation Forum.

EEB questioned why "D"-class halogen lamps are allowed to be marketed and sold as 'eco-saving lamps'. Moreover, in the USA high lumen output bulbs (e.g. 60W equivalent bulbs) are available on the market, and testing data from the Energy Star programme could be used as additional data source for this discussion.

EuroCommerce stated that they invest heavily in LED and retailers such as IKEA have decided to only sell LEDs from 1 September 2015 to support energy efficient lighting technologies.

BE asked for the date of the Regulatory Committee meeting and asked LightingEurope about their knowledge on LED-filament lamps.

Presentation from Lighting Europe

LightingEurope responded by presenting remarks on the report: according to their understanding, 46% of all tested lamps were not in compliance with regulatory requirements, and, given that the switch to LEDs is happening anyway, argued that no phase-out of halogen lamps is necessary. The testing of a halogen lamp for 240V from the British market with 230V raises questions about the correct testing. The focus on low-lumen output lamps does mean that data on replacements for many high-lumen halogen lamps is missing. Furthermore, there are many specific halogen lamps for which no LED replacement exists, e.g. because of the external dimensions. LED-filament lamps are still not mature and many manufacturers experience problems. Hence, mainly 'no-brand' manufacturers are bringing them on the market, because the well-known brands do not want to impose low quality products on their customers. Overall, LEDs cannot yet fully replace halogen lamps.

SE assured that it will re-check the halogen lamp testing (230V/240V) and informed the Consultation Forum that members of LightingEurope would visit the Swedish testing lab in the following week.

IT reminded LightingEurope not to use an 'eco' branding for halogen lamps, because they are only "D"-class lamps.

EEB stated that there are also LED-filament lamps with a heat sink and that this technology is maturing fast.

BE reiterated that the market study did not fully resemble a market surveillance test, hence one should be cautious about drawing conclusions on compliance from the study. In the one case where the labelling was clearly wrong, the study team informed the respective national market surveillance authority.

EEB asked whether halogen lamps do not have premature failures.

DE added that according to their experience halogen lamps do not perform significantly better in overall compliance tests than LEDs.

LightingEurope replied that every product can fail prematurely but its manufacturers guarantee that the failure rate is within the legal limit.

IT informed the Commission of problems with the Italian language version of the energy labelling regulation, and the templates on the Commission's website do not correspond to the requirements in the regulation.

VHK informed participants that a preparatory study on lighting is ongoing and the project's website is 
[www.ecodesign-lightsources.eu](http://www.ecodesign-lightsources.eu)
 where interested parties can find the task reports and register for stakeholder meetings. Another study on fans can be found on 
[www.fanreview.eu](http://www.fanreview.eu)
.

The Commission stated that no date has yet been fixed for the Regulatory Committee meeting. Furthermore, it will keep stakeholders informed about the start of new studies and adoptions through the Consultation Forum.

The Chair thanked the Members of the Consultation Forum for their participation and closed the meeting.

  

ANNEX – Attendance List

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48021.jpg)

 

5.3
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum of 8 October 2012

Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting on Televisions and Displays

Subject: Ecodesign Consultation Forum established under Article 18 of Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC

Venue: Centre A. Borschette, Brussels

Chair: ENER C3

Participants representing the EC from: ENER C3, DG ENTR and DG ENV

Participants representing stakeholders: Annex I

Abbreviations: Ecodesign (ED), Energy Labelling (EL), Energy Efficiency (EE), ENERGY STAR (ES)

1.
   Agenda points 1 & 2 - Welcome of participants and approval of the agenda

CHAIR welcomed participants and apologised for Paul Hodson's (Head of C3 Unit) absence. Minutes from the previous CF meeting on online labelling (held on 10 July) were adopted without changes. An agenda of the meeting was adopted without changes.

The Commission services (EC) distributed the updated information on a) responsibilities within the EC's Ecodesign Team and b) the ongoing and future legislative work.

2.
   Agenda point 3 - Discussion about the review of EL and ED Regulations on televisions
   (presentation on CIRCA)

The EC draw attention of the participants to the 'Discussion paper on the review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations for televisions and on the draft Regulation on electronic displays, including computer monitors' that had been distributed on CIRCA and thanked stakeholders for their position papers that had also been uploaded on CIRCA.

The EC reviewed the application of the ED and EL Regulations. It pointed at trends and developments that had taken place since the entry into force of the Regulations, including a rapid development and market adoption of energy efficient technologies, a higher number of display devices per household, an overall increase in the average size of television screens and computer monitors, longer daily use of display devices, and the introduction of new features. The EC also noted that despite these developments, the total energy consumption by TVs has decreased, mainly because of their increased energy efficiency.

Moreover, the EC stressed that available data and experts indicated that ED and EL Regulations have had a limited impact on the TV market. The rapid evolution of TV energy efficient technology exceeded expectations of both Regulations. The introduction of new types of televisions was mainly driven by the availability of relevant technologies, a demand for improved picture quality and design, as well as a competition between manufacturers and thus it happened largely independently of the ED and EL requirements.

The EC concluded that there was a need for a revision of the two TV Regulations and that it would present a proposal for new measures.

SWEREA IVF supported the need for a revision and noted that industry had realised the importance of EE. It also mentioned that the revised Regulation should include requirements on recycling.

IT did not agree that there was a need for a revision of EL Regulation but noted that some minor modifications would be necessary.

DE stated that a full-scale revision of EL Regulation would be premature. It noted however, that some modifications were required, e.g. the earlier introduction of top three EE classes (A+, A++, A+++).

ECOS agreed that the market development had not been correctly predicted and that the requirements were not sufficiently stringent. ECOS supported a full revision of EL Regulation. Should the latter not be possible, the top three EE classes should be introduced earlier.

BE agreed with comments made by IT and DE that it would be too early to proceed with a full revision of EL Regulation.

DIGITAL EUROPE expressed its major concern about the scope of the new proposal to be discussed later during the day (i.e. TVs and other displays).

NL agreed that the predictions in the preparatory study were wrong, and future studies should prevent this happening again. It pointed at a need to receive reliable information also on non-energy related aspects of displays. It supported a full EL revision in a few years but recommended faster entry into force of the top three EE classes.

UK supported a revision of ED Regulation which should also include non-energy related aspects. It objected to a full revision of EL Regulation.

CLASP agreed with the proposal to revise both Regulations and to apply the same formula/equation for ecodesign and energy labelling. It also stressed the need to set out the requirements at a proper level of stringency.

SE was in favour of a full revision of both ED and EL Regulations. The future ED should also include some requirements on non-energy related issues.

FR was of the opinion that it was too soon for a full revision of EL Regulation.

ANEC supported the revision of EL and ED Regulations.

CECED disagreed with a view that the development of TVs has not been influenced by the existing EU Regulations. It explained that industry had been working on new energy efficient technologies already during the consultation phase preceding the adoption of the Regulations. It also proposed that the EU Regulations should contain a mechanism allowing for an automatic adjustment of the requirements without a need for a revision.

DIGITAL EUROPE pointed out that the sample size of 412 TVs currently on the market was quite small. Furthermore, it stressed that improvements in 2011 and 2012 slowed down and thus the curve was more flat than in the previous years. It was in favour of keeping the current A-G scale.

DK supported the proposed revisions, particularly of ED Regulation.

AT expressed its opinion that EL Regulation can be improved but it should not be subject to full revision. The A+++ class should be introduced earlier to use the current EL in an efficient way.

NL agreed that the average EE index was flattening out, but further improvements would be achievable. It pointed out that larger screens could obtain a better EE rating more easily than small screens.

DIGITAL EUROPE pointed out that computer displays were already governed by the ENERGY STAR.

|  |
| --- |
| The EC summarised the discussion and concluded that stakeholders were in favour of the full revision of ED Regulation and of the introduction of a new set of ecodesign requirements. Furthermore, stakeholders were in favour of specific modifications of EL Regulation (e.g. earlier entry into force of the top three EE classes) but they (with the exception of NGOs, SE and DK) had not supported the idea of a full revision Regulation. |

3.
   Agenda Point 4 - New proposal for the Commission Regulation laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays and a new proposal for the Commission Delegated Regulation laying down energy labelling requirements for electronic displays (presentation on CIRCA)

3.1 Ecodesign

The EC presented the scope of a draft proposal for a new ED Regulation on electronic displays and justified the merger of TVs (lot 5) with computer monitors (lot 3). In principle, the draft Regulation would apply to all displays, including TVs, computer monitors and digital photo frames. Certain categories of products, e.g. high performance electronic displays, products covered by the computers Regulation and projectors may however have to be excluded from the scope of the Regulation.

AT supported the proposal to regulate TVs and computer monitors together. AT asked whether a manufacturer or a retailer should decide on a classification of a product as a TV or a computer monitor.

The EC clarified that the manufacturer or retailer should not decide on the product classification. Such decision should stem directly from the Regulation and provided definitions. Under the draft Regulation, the classification of products will not be as relevant as it is under the current legal regime, because the same requirement will apply to all electronic displays (including TVs and computer monitors).

DIGITAL EUROPE did not agree on laying down one set of requirements for TVs and computer monitors. It stressed that ES applied in the EU to computer monitors. Consequently, two separate Regulations should be prepared.

SE supported the EC's proposal, and noted a need for precise definitions of exemptions.

NL supported the EC's proposal and pointed out voluntary aspect of ES.

IT argued for two separate Regulations for TVs and computer monitors.

ECOS supported the EC's proposal. It proposed that the EC should ask CENELEC to prepare measurement methods that could be used for all displays. ECOS also suggested that, if necessary, the entry into force of the requirements for computer monitors could be postponed (compared to TVs).

DK supported the EC's proposal to review EL and ED, and asked the EC to provide more information on high-performance products and to consider a decision of including them in the scope.

UK supported the EC's proposal provided that common measurement methods would be established. Precise definitions of products exempted from the draft Regulation should be provided.

DE supported the EC's proposal. It stressed, however, that different criteria should apply to special-use displays.

ANEC supported the EC's proposal.

BE informed that it was not against the EC's proposal. It proposed that the draft Regulation should contain two chapters, one on TVs and the second one for computer monitors.

Hewlett Packard stressed that ES has been successful for many product groups including computer monitors. Therefore, its requirements on computer monitors could be included in the draft Regulation. It objected to merging TVs and computer monitors.

Hewlett Packard informed that computer display manufacturers were not involved in the standardisation work and that the mandate 477 should be broadened.

The EC clarified that it would amend the mandate 477 given to CENELEC so that the latter could prepare a new measurement method applicable to all electronic displays (including TVs and computer monitors).

LG stated that the design of TVs and computer displays was different. This fact should be taken into account when developing harmonised measurement methods.

ECOS noted that new technologies (for example internet-enabled TVs which have a huge stand-by power consumption) were not covered by current test standards. A particular TV model was mentioned as an example.

DIGITAL EUROPE explained that the TV model mentioned by ECOS was old and no longer available on the market.

LG pointed out a difference in testing methods for TVs and computer monitors, which could result in unfair treatment of certain models. It promised to submit its own testing data.

Bob Harrison (the EC's expert) clarified that following the receipt of the amended mandate 477, CENELEC would start the work on harmonised measurement methods that could be applied to TVs and computer monitors. According to BH, establishment of the harmonised method ('dynamic test loop') seems feasible. So far, luminance has been identified as a major issue in the standardisation work.

|  |
| --- |
| The EC concluded that a majority of stakeholders supported the EC's proposal to prepare one set of ecodesign requirements for TVs and computer monitors. Furthermore, the EC explained that it would request industry to provide more test data particularly on computer monitors and that it would consider changes to mandate 477 so that CENELEC could prepare proper measurement methods. |

The EC presented the requirements on on-mode power consumption. The draft Regulation proposes two new equations/formulas (for displays below and above 16.5 dm²). The equations were established on a logarithmic regression line that is technologically neutral and does not favour any product group or technology. Three Tiers were proposed.

DIGITAL EUROPE informed that the EE index should follow (as in the current Regulation) a linear curve. It also proposed to lower the stringency of requirements and to introduce separate sets of requirements for plasma TVs and LCDs. Finally, it stressed that plasma TVs and small screens would have problems to meet the proposed requirements, what could have an impact on jobs.

IT stated that the linear regression line should be maintained.

EEB supported the EC's proposal and proposed that a review clause could be introduced before the entry into force of Tier 3 (T3) requirements. The proposal should also include non-energy related aspects.

ECOS/NRDC supported the EC's proposal and noted that year 2017 would be very different from today, mainly because of the development of EE technologies such Organic LEDs. It supported the application of the logarithmic regression line. Furthermore, it noted that the requirements might be too stringent for small displays.

UK supported the proposal to set out less stringent requirements for small displays.

NL supported the EC's proposal and assessed DIGITAL EUROPE's predictions as unrealistic. It noted the issue of the stringency of the requirements for small displays.

SE supported the EC's proposal including the application of the logarithmic approach, but pointed out that the proposal could have been even more ambitious.

ANEC supported the application of the logarithmic approach, but asked for more ambitious requirements on large screens. It noted an issue of the stringency of requirements for small displays.

DE expressed a view that T3 requirements might be too stringent.

PANASONIC stated that the proposal would have a negative impact on plasma TVs which would struggle to meet T2 requirements. It noted that industry has not yet managed to recover the R&D and fabrication costs. The plasma technology is especially important for large screens.

UK stated that the assessment of the requirements should be linked with an assessment of the costs.

The EC replied that this issue would be addressed in the impact assessment.

DK supported the EC's proposal with its logarithmic approach, and asked the EC to consider more stringent requirements.

LG confirmed the willingness of industry to develop EE TVs - however, the proposed requirements were too stringent.

AT noted that additional data on computer monitors would be very useful. Furthermore, it informed that T1 and T2 requirements seemed reasonable, but T3 needed further discussions.

INTEL stressed the need to lower the stringency of requirements, particularly for T1, and raised the issue of signage products.

CLASP informed that foreseen future developments of the LED technology would drive the EE of displays.

EEB proposed that if no compromise can be reached, a solution could be to establish the requirements for computer monitors on the basis of ES version 6.

ECOS stressed that more data should be made available to stakeholders. California is going in a promising way with its legislation, and uses test methods working with recent developments such as 3D TV and 4K.

|  |
| --- |
| The EC summarised the discussion and concluded that a majority of stakeholders supported the proposal. However, further considerations should be given to small displays (including computer monitors) and plasma televisions. The EC informed that it would request industry to provide more test data to ensure that the requirements (particularly in T3) are set out at the right level. |

  

EC presented the requirements on off-mode, standby mode, availability of off & standby modes, Auto Power Down (APD), home mode, peak luminance ratio and networked standby.

ECOS pointed out that the off-mode should also include features such as internet-TV.

DE commented that APD appeared not to be included in the case of quick start.

NL stated that the possibility for disabling APD should not be applied; some exemptions could, however, be foreseen in special purpose TVs.

LG mentioned that APD may be an issue for signage products. This function should be removed from signage products.

|  |
| --- |
| The EC summarised the discussion and concluded that majority of stakeholders supported the proposed requirements. APD in signage products will be further considered. |

  

The EC presented non-energy related aspects, including dismantlability, recyclability and an information requirement that could be considered for a new Regulation. The EC explained that these aspects originate from a recent JRC study and that the potential requirements would come into force only in T2. The EC invited all stakeholders to provide comments on the results of the JRC study.

NL asked for the inclusion of non-energy related aspects in the new Regulation.

SE stated that non-energy related aspects should be included in the draft Regulation and that it would be happy to provide comments on a concrete proposal.

ANEC/BEUC was in favour of including non-energy related aspects in the draft Regulation.

IT stressed the importance of resource efficiency and its enforceability. IT expressed its doubts whether the requirements on non-energy related aspects could be enforced by market surveillance authorities.

DE agreed with IT regarding market surveillance and enforceability of such requirements.

ECOS mentioned the issue of flame retardants in TVs.

DIGITAL EUROPE informed the meeting about the industry's problems with the implementation of WEEE Directive and with the re-use of plastics from TVs.

CECED informed the meeting that industry was ready to accept requirements on recycling provided that the enforcement of the provisions would be strengthened. Otherwise, this would be harmful to industry playing by the rules.

NL agreed that enforceability of the requirements was of great importance.

ANEC informed about challenges faced by recyclers in the application of WEEE Directive.

ORGALIME pointed out that ED requirements should not create excessive costs and raised an issue of manual dismantling.

DIGITAL EUROPE disagreed with the figures from the JRC study. It also found it difficult to accept the situation where legal provisions (binding industry) on non-energy related aspects are proposed without a proper methodology or verification mechanisms.

3.2
   Energy labelling

The EC presented a draft proposal for a new EL Regulation on electronic displays. It clarified that EL Regulation would apply to TVs and other displays including computer monitors. Furthermore, the EC informed that the draft Regulation would include new equations/formulas (the same as in ED Regulation).

UK supported the EC's proposal to cover both TVs and other displays, including computer monitors, and to introduce a new equation that would not however result in changing the distribution of EE classes among products available on the market.

IT proposed that current equations were maintained and no other changes resulting in different distribution of EE classes were made.

DE agreed that a full revision of the Regulation would be too early. It supported the EC's proposal as regards the scope of the draft Regulation, and the introduction of the new equation.

DK supported all aspects of the EC proposal, including the scope and the new equation. It was of the opinion that changes in the distribution of EE classes were necessary.

SE also supported all aspects of the EC proposal.

NL supported the EC's proposal regarding the scope and the new equation. It was not in favour of changing the distribution of EE classes. However, it pointed out that top EE classes could enter into force earlier than foreseen in the current Regulation.

DIGITAL EUROPE did not support any changes in the distribution of EE classes.

ECOS agreed that the top EE classes should enter into force sooner.

BE agreed with ECOS's comment. It was not, however, in favour of changing the equation and any changes in the distribution of EE classes.

AT agreed with the extension of the scope of the new Regulation to other displays. It also proposed that changes to the distribution of EE classes should be considered taking into account the market data.

ANEC was strongly in favour of changing the distribution of EE classes.

ECOS was in favour of applying the EL requirements to computer monitors.

DIGITAL EUROPE pointed out at the success of the ES, and restated its disagreement on a merger of TVs and computer displays. It also re-stated that an 18 month period between the Tiers was too ambitious.

The CHAIR asked stakeholders for additional written comments (if any) on the EC's proposal. These should be submitted within 30 days after the meeting. The CHAIR closed the meeting.

  

ANNEX – Attendance List

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48022.jpg)

 

5.4
   Minutes of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum of 8 October 2009

Subject:
   Ecodesign of EuPs Consultation Forum – Computers and Displays

Place:
   Centre de Conférence Albert Borchette, Brussels

EC Services:
   TREN/D3, ENTR/B1, ENV/G1

Consultation Forum – Computers and Displays

1.Welcome and introduction

The Chairman welcomed the participants and presented the agenda and the participants from the Commission.

2.Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted without changes.

3.Working document on possible ecodesign requirements for Computers

The Commission services presented the main aspects of the working document and the rationale of the approach for discussion (see presentation circulated together with these draft minutes). It was explained that the aim would be to align as much as possible minimum ecodesign requirements with Energy Star. Practically, it is suggested to introduce requirements in two steps, with a first tier based on Energy Star 4.0 and a second tier based on Energy Star 5.0 entering into force in 2013 (with several adjustments).

Scope

At the request of ANEC the Commission services clarified that no size limit was included in the definition of netbooks, which are covered under the notebook definition.

AT indicated that Energy Star did not include provisions regarding notebook screens, and asked whether these should be included in the Commission’s proposal. The Commission services and MTP (The UK Market Transformation Programme providing support on this project) acknowledged that important work would be needed on furthering Energy Star test-methods for notebook screens. It was suggested that this element should be driven by Energy Star.

Workstations and thin-clients were not included in the initial study and workstations have a very limited compliance rate with Energy Star at the moment. These two product group should be excluded from the scope given that it would be difficult for such high-end products to comply with the proposed requirements and also considering that these represent less than 10% of the computers market. The effect might be that high-end products will be assembled by the consumer from parts bought separately (DIGITALEUROPE).

ECOS enquired about a potential preliminary study on servers. The Commission services indicated that it is still being considered what additional studies could be launched. In the short term however it should be considered to include servers in the measure on computers with a requirement on the efficiency of the internal power supply. This would be technically feasible, cost-effective and would capture the majority of the energy-saving potential for this product group. AT supported such an approach in the short term but further work on the other aspects should be done in the future.

Although it is necessary to harmonise possible ecodesign requirements as much as possible with Energy Star simply importing the specifications from one of the Energy Star versions would lead to a situation where requirements for some product categories would be much less stringent than others therefore further adjustments would be needed (DK).

At the request of BE the Commission services indicated that it was legally possible to have a higher level of stringency of ecodesign requirements than those specified in Energy Star but that this will be further consulted with the Commission Legal Service.

Definitions

The Commission services suggested that definitions be drawn directly from Energy Star albeit with the necessary adjustments.

The product group should be taken out of the scope of the 'Standby regulation' as the definitions of 'standby' and 'off mode' in the 'Standby regulation' are not suitable for computers. The mode definitions should be drawn from Energy Star. It is acknowledged that the presence of two different definitions of 'off mode' in two regulations within one single framework directive might prove problematic (Commission services).

'Off mode' as defined in Regulation 1275/2008 is suitable for computers and the other operating modes which don't correspond to the definitions laid out in Regulation 1275/2008 should be clearly defined in the product-specific legislation. The definitions that will be drawn-up in a future measure on 'networked standby' should be anticipated. The definitions of the 'off mode' proposed in the Working Document were inspired from the 'old definitions' of the IEC standard which gives a lot of scope for interpretation and which is currently being revised towards an approach where 'off mode' means 'no function provided' (NL). The definitions under Regulation 1275/2008 are horizontal and, in line with the approach in standardisation can be adapted for product-specific needs. It is important to be coherent in that respect with the Energy Star Programme since it relates to exactly the same product (IT). With 'wake-on-lan' (WOL) disabled 'off mode' as defined in Regulation 1275/2008 is suitable for computers (DIGITALEUROPE). If 'off mode' for computers is defined as in Regulation 1275/2008 WOL would need to be treated as a separate functionality (Commission services).

The computer measure should be harmonised as much as possible with Regulation 1275/2008 and this product group should not be taken out of the scope of the Regulation. This should be complemented with additional product-specific definitions in the product-specific regulation (DK, UK, DE). WOL should be switched off as default (DK).

AT enquired about the possibility to extend the scope of Regulation 1275/2008 to office equipment. AT remarked that standby levels for computers as described in the horizontal regulation would be equivalent to 'S4' according to SCPI, which is not yet covered by either Energy Star or the horizontal regulation. DIGITALEUROPE clarified that 'domestic' did not mean 'at home' per se, but rather, relates to levels of radiations acceptable in offices and at home, as opposed to computer rooms for example.

Having all product-specific requirements in product-specific regulations gives legal clarity (NL). The Chairman stated that the goal was to provide a legislation that is both comprehensive and user-friendly.

In line with the comments provided by Member States definitions taken from Energy Star will need to be adjusted and any requirements should be included in the annexes of the regulations (Commission services).

Timeline

The Commission services presented the proposed timeline for the entry into force of the requirements as well as the underlying assumptions regarding the levels of compliance with the Energy Star criteria.

DIGITALEUROPE asked for clarification on the expected future Energy Star compliance rates included in the Working Document and asked whether non-standard equipment configurations were factored in these figures. NL asked for a clarification whether these figures factored in the fact that office equipment (i.e. the one registered under Energy Star) might have different configurations than home equipment. The Commission services and MTP clarified that the said figures originated from the Environment Protection Agency data and a survey by IDC. These were partially based on sales percentages therefore included also home (i.e. higher specification) equipment.

Tier 1 requirements should be applicable 12 to 18 months after entry into force of the regulation, so as to give the industry enough time to redesign products (DIGITALEUROPE)

The second tier should be introduced earlier than proposed in the Working Document (AT, NL, UK, SE, DK). It would be preferable to base first tier requirements on Energy Star 5.0. These should be applicable 1 year after the entry into force of the regulation followed by a tier 2 based on Energy Star 6.0 requirements when these are released (ECOS, ANEC). The revision should be carried earlier than proposed and be harmonised with the entry into force of Energy Star 6.0 (SE).

Ecodesign requirements

The Commission services outlined the content of the proposal.

Requirements on product components such as the internal power supplies (IPS) should be avoided. Furthermore seeking improvements on internal power supplies energy efficiency was not always necessary, considering that certain products already achieve targets without requiring modified internal power supplies. In the case of low-end computers forcing a requirement on internal power supplies’ energy efficiency would result in higher prices for SMEs and marginal energy efficiency gains. This should be factored in the impact assessment of the proposal (DIGITALEUROPE). The Chairman remarked that IPS represent a significant and cost-effective saving potential and applying specific requirements on components makes sense for equipment assembled by users.

In this particular case there is a strong rationale for placing a requirement on IPS. The price difference between efficient and inefficient IPS is small and is expected to decrease to almost null once these requirements become mandatory (SE, DK, DE, AT, UK, NL, ANEC).

Requirements for the different operating modes should be maintained beyond the first tier. The TEC approach for ecodesign might be not appropriate as usage-patterns vary greatly (AT).

The introduction of idle limits (be in n the mode approach or through the TEC) would be problematic especially for the segment of high-performance PCs. This was supported by the findings of the preparatory study (DIGITALEUROPE). A first assessment indicates that cost-effective solutions to limit the idle consumption across the whole range of products do exist but this matter will be investigated further as part of the impact assessment (Commission services).

Other environmental impacts

This measure should be complement by specific limits related to the content of mercury under the RoHS Directive by establishing requirement on according information (in mg) at the point of sale and marketing materials. Cold cathode-fluorescent lighting (CCF) used for LCD screens should be removed from the exceptions list under the RoHS Directive, as they offer energy efficiency and other environmental advantages. This should be done in coordination with the specific committee working in the framework of the RoHS Directive (SE, BE, UK, EEB).

Issues related of waste and dangerous materials should be dealt with under the relevant legislation, and not Ecodesign. The problem doesn't originate from the design of computers but from the way the recycling industry handles the products (DIGITALEUROPE).

RoHS and WEEE requirements are not sufficient. Other environmental impacts of computers, including PVC, plastics, use of metals, upgradeability of computers, energy embedded in production processes could be addressed through generic ecodesign requirements (ECOS, ANEC). There exist standards that could be used as a basis for it (UK). Since the Article 4 of the WEEE draft recast refers no longer to recycling, but to recovery, there is a need to include requirements linked to recycling in the Ecodesign regulations (EEB).

Information requirements

The Commission services introduced the elements related to information requirements.

There will be always a difference between benchmark models and market average therefore there is a rationale for informing consumers about energy consumption. Even though an 'A to G label' might not be feasible basic information (TEC or mode consumption) could be displayed at the point of sale and websites (ECOS). The TEC might be misleading as the usage patterns very greatly (AT).

The Chairman reminded the participants about the Council Decision of 18 December 2006 on the coordination on energy efficiency labelling programs for office equipments between the EC and the US. This agreement does not prevent the setting-up of new schemes in addition to Energy Star. It should be however considered whether a new scheme for such equipment would add value and would not undermine the current scheme. It is uncertain if an Energy label would be justified in terms of the differences in the energy consumption of equipment on the market (especially for displays).

Energy Star and a possible Energy label have different target groups. It has to be also noted that Energy Star is also moving in the direction of a comparative label with a 'golden star' for the best 10% (NL). The UK and AT supported in principle the introduction of a possible Energy label for displays.

An accumulation of labels would entail a risk of confusing consumers (DIGITALEUROPE).

Revision

The Commissions services acknowledged that is should be brought forward. The revision date should be harmonised with the work on new Energy Star criteria (NL).

Benchmarks

Eco-label criteria should be introduced for the other environmental aspects in the benchmark (SE, ANEC).

4.Working document on possible ecodesign requirements for Displays

The Commission services presented the main aspects of the working document and the rationale of the approach for discussion (see presentation circulated together with these draft minutes). The aim is to align the requirements with Energy Star as much as possible. Tier 1 requirements (based on Energy Star 4.1) would enter into force six months after entry into force of the directive. Second stage would kick-in from October 2013 based on Energy Star 5.0. The requirements for 'off mode' would be aligned with Regulation 1275/2008.

Scope

Screens above 30 inches to be included in the scope as such monitors (e.g. signalling screens) are already present on the market and there is no technical justification for excluding them notwithstanding what kind of requirements are suitable for such screens (NL, ECOS).

Definitions

'Off mode' should be defined as in Regulation 1275/2008 and this should be used consistently across product-specific implementing measures (NL).

DE enquired about the relationship with the television product group, notably whether a display with an HDMI interface would be considered as a TV set. The Commission services acknowledged that this issue needs further analysis.

The Chairman asked the participants for suggestions on how to best differentiate displays from TV sets. This could be solved by placing an upper limit for the size of displays falling under the draft measure (DIGITALEUROPE).

Timeline of requirements

Tier 1 requirements should start to apply twelve months after the entry into force of the Regulation to allow for redesign (DIGITALEUROPE).

While harmonization with Energy Star would be a positive move, strictly following each and every specification would not be the best approach (DK, ANEC).

The deadline for the implementation of Tier 1 should be set earlier (ANEC). Tier 1 should be removed and Tier 2 deadlines to be advanced (ECOS).

Moving from a voluntary scheme (Energy Star) to mandatory requirements would entail serious consequences on the market, leading potentially to the exclusion of some types of products and functions from the market (DIGITALEUROPE). Consistency between these two tools would reinforce both of them (Chairman). It can be envisaged to move straight to the current Tier 2 and a second tier possibly based on Energy Star 6.0 when the latter is available (UK).

87% of the monitors in EU Energy Star database consume less than 1 watt in sleep mode so it would be possible to make this mandatory in the first tier (DK). This figure to remain at 2W as some monitors would have difficulties to meet this threshold (DIGITALEUROPE).

Specific requirements

The auto-power down (APD) of digital photo frame could be set after 2 hours of user inactivity, instead of 4 as proposed in the Working Document. This should be preceded by warning message (ANEC). The APD should be set as default and it should be impossible to disable it (as in the regulation on simple set-top boxes). It should be ensured that consumers are informed about the energy consumption of these devices (ECOS). Retailers need to have digital photo frames on for several hours therefore there has to be a possibility to disable this function (DIGITALEUROPE).

Energy Star 5.0 includes provisions for automatic brightness control and that option should be included in the regulation (DIGITALEUROPE). Tests had shown that this option provided for limited savings only (Commission services, MTP).

Other environmental impacts

SE reiterated its comments from the morning session related to mercury and cold cathode-fluorescent lighting in displays.

DIGITALEUROPE stated the industry would discuss these issues internally and suggest possible options for better design in that respect.

Information requirements

Adding new labels o existing ones would add cost and would not be beneficial for the consumer (DIGITALEUROPE). ECOS pointed out that DIGITALEUROPE was supportive on the Energy label for TVs. The introduction of an Energy label for displays would be useful, also taking into account the similarity of this product group with TVs and the fact that that TVs and displays are evolving in the same direction (NL, SE, ECOS, ANEC).

The Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) under the Energy labelling measures should have a progressive component which would make it more difficult for bigger devices to have the highest energy classes (SE). The formula used under Energy Star 5.0 makes it rather difficult for big screens to achieve high energy efficiency indexes (NL). In the labelling measure on TVs it was decided to have a linear, as opposed to a progressive approach (Chairman). A progressive approach is not needed as consumers understand the difference between different size products (IT). This discussion cannot be applied to displays because for practical reasons (e.g. size of the desk) there will not be a move towards eve-bigger displays (DIGITALEUROPE).

At the request of SE, DIGITALEUROPE reported a 10% to 15% increase in energy efficiency of notebooks following a replacement of backlighting by LEDs.

Participants

FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR MATERIAL RESEARCH AND TESTING

ADEME

European Environmental Bureau

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ministère écologie énergie et developpement durable

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC ENERGY TOURISM

INFORSE Europe

DEFRA

Ministry of Environment Belgium

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ECONIMICS AND TECHNOLOGY

WWF European Policy Office (EPO)

NORVEGIAN WATER RESOURCES AND ENERGY DIRECTORATE

BEUC

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Swedish Energy Agency

Ministry of Economy Slovakia

EFTA

AMD (digitaleurope)

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS & COMMUNICATIONS

TEST ACHAT

Ministry of Environment Romania

Swedish Energy Agency

INTEL (digitaleurope)

ANEC/BEUC

DEFRA

Ministerio dello Sviluppo Economico

DELL (digitaleurope)

DANISH ENERGY AGENCY

ENEA

ANEC

ÖKOPOL (ECOS)

AUSTRIAN ENERGY AGENCY

Ministry of Environment Belgium

HP (digitaleurope)

SENTERNOVEM

Enterprise Ireland

ECOS

DANISH ENERGY AGENCY

ATUITIVE

DEFRA

  

Annex 6:
   The market of electronic displays

1.SALES

Overview

Figures hereafter summarise the historic sales and stock data for electronic displays (TVs and computer monitors) for the period between 1990 and 2016, as well as the baseline projections for the period between 2017 and 2030. The graph shows a peak in sales in 2009 with 105 million units, and a rise of the stock to 700 million units by 2030.

The 2017 EU market value of electronic displays in consumer prices is estimated at around €19bn (€16bn TV, €3bn monitors).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48023.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48024.jpg)

Figure 6.3: Energy use electronic displays in the EU (BAU, including signage)

In the previous 2013 impact assessment digital photo frames (DPFs) were included in the intended scope
[15](#footnote16)
, but today the market for DPFs is almost non-existant and considered too small to be rgulated.

The figure below, also included in the main IA, gives an overview of the total surface of electronic displays in 2020, both within and outside the scope of the proposed policy measures. Notebooks and tablets, status displays, mobile devices, projectors and partially “public” displays are not in the scope (i.e. about 12-15% of total surface).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48025.jpg)

Figure 6.4: Share of electronic display surface per product group (EU 2020, source VHK)

  

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Table 6.2. Forecast of electronic display surface area in EU 2020 (VHK estimate) | | | | | | | | | | | | | Display | | | Surface | | Stock | | | Total area | | | Note | |  | | | diag. | area | units | | |  | | |  | |  | | | inch | dm² | million | | | km² | | |  | | Television | | | 44 | 53 | 494 |  |  | 262.4 |  |  |  | |  | Regular TV | | 44 | 53 |  | 477 |  |  | 255 |  | EIA, stock 2020 [Note 1] | |  | Hospitality TV | | 36 | 36 |  | 16.7 |  |  | 7.4 |  |  | |  |  | hotel rooms & other lodgings | 40 | 44 |  | 14 | |  | 6.2 | | 11.6 m beds (MEErP) | |  |  | hospital beds | 40 | 44 |  | 2.7 | |  | 1.2 | | 2.7 m curative beds (MEErP) | | Regular monitors | | | 24 | 16 | 81 |  |  | 12.7 |  |  |  | |  |  | desktop PC | 24 | 16 |  | 64 |  |  | 10.2 |  | EIA, stock 2020 | |  |  | thin client | 21 | 12 |  | 4.8 |  |  | 0.6 |  | EIA, stock 2020 | |  |  | notebook external | 24 | 16 |  | 11.7 |  |  | 1.9 |  | remainder | | Special monitors | | | 24 | 16 | 8.5 |  |  | 3.3 |  |  |  | |  |  | security monitors | 33 | 60 |  | 3.7 |  |  | 2.2 |  | [Note 2] | |  |  | medical displays (incl. integrated) | 27 | 20 |  | 0.8 |  |  | 0.2 |  | [Note 3] | |  |  | broadcasting displays | 27 | 20 |  | 0.8 |  |  | 0.2 |  | [Note 4] | |  |  | professional displays (CAD, Graphics) | 28 | 22 |  | 3.2 |  |  | 0.7 |  | EIA, stock 2020 | | Regular signage display | | | 55 | 83 | 30 |  |  | 24.4 |  |  |  | |  |  | retail & banks (indoor, excl. ATM) | 43 | 50 |  | 11 |  |  | 5.7 |  | [Note 5] | |  |  | meeting rooms (incl. video conference) | 75 | 155 |  | 5 |  |  | 7.8 |  | 5 m meeting rooms (169 million m² floor area) | |  |  | classrooms (incl. smart boards) | 70 | 135 |  | 5 |  |  | 6.8 |  | 5 m class rooms (93 m students + vocational) | |  |  | airport/train/metro stations | 55 | 83 |  | 1.2 |  |  | 1.0 |  | [Note 6] | |  |  | bars, hotels (public area), restaurants | 44 | 53 |  | 2 |  |  | 1.1 |  | 0.2m hotels, 0.8 m restaurants, 0.7m bars | |  |  | waiting rooms (e.g. healthcare) | 44 | 53 |  | 2 |  |  | 1.1 |  | 10k hospitals, 2 m doctors | |  |  | outdoors | 55 | 83 |  | 1.1 |  |  | 0.9 |  | estimate (10% of retail) | | Special signage display | | |  |  | 4 |  |  | 7.1 |  |  |  | |  |  | superlarge (>100", video-wall) | 110 | 333 |  | 0.02 |  |  | 0.07 |  | estimate | |  |  | projectors | 80 | 176 |  | 4 |  |  | 7 |  | EIA, stock 2020 | | Integrated displays | | |  |  | 1605 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  |  | |  | Mobile devices | | 5.5 | 0.8 |  | 1000 |  |  | 7.6 |  | EIA, stock 2020 | |  |  | cell phones | 5 | 0.6 |  | 500 | |  | 3.2 | | estimate (>100% penetration) | |  |  | GPS (incl. car-systems) | 7 | 1.3 |  | 250 | |  | 3.2 | | estimate (number of cars) | |  |  | (video) cameras | 4 | 0.4 |  | 150 | |  | 0.6 | | estimate (3/4 of households) | |  |  | other mobile display (games, MP3, etc.) | 5 | 0.6 |  | 100 | |  | 0.6 | | estimate | |  | Integrated status (pixel) display | | 7.2 | 1.35 |  | 198 |  |  | 2.9 |  | [Note 7] | |  |  | ATMs (banks) | 30 | 25 |  | 1 | |  | 0.3 | | 0.42m ATMs (source: EAST) | |  |  | pro (EP colour) copier/printer | 6 | 1 |  | 14.2 | |  | 0.1 | | 10% of 145 m imaging equipment | |  |  | premium vending machines | 9 | 2 |  | 0.38 | |  | 0.01 | | 10% of 3.77 m units (www.vending-europe.eu) | |  |  | commercial & pro refrigeration | 6 | 1 |  | 2.1 | |  | 0.02 | | 10% of 21 m units | |  |  | Industrial tools/ovens/laundry | 9 | 2 |  | 10 | |  | 0.2 | | maximum estimate VHK | |  |  | heating boilers/thermostats | 6 | 1 |  | 12.8 | |  | 0.1 | | 10% of 128 m boilers | |  |  | central air conditioners | 8 | 1.6 |  | 2.3 | |  | 0 | | 30% of 7.5 m units | |  |  | smart meters/domotique | 8 | 1.6 |  | 45 | |  | 0.7 | | 30% of 150 m meters/dedicated panels | |  |  | ventilation units | 6 | 1 |  | 5.6 | |  | 0.1 | | 10% of 56 m units | |  |  | hh el. ovens | 6 | 1 |  | 21 | |  | 0.2 | | 10% of 209 m electric household (hh) ovens | |  |  | hh microwave | 6 | 1 |  | 10 | |  | 0.1 | | 10% of estimated 100 m units | |  |  | hh refrigeration | 9 | 2 |  | 30.8 | |  | 0.6 | | 10% of 308 m units | |  |  | hh (dish) washing, drying | 6 | 1 |  | 39.5 | |  | 0.4 | | 10% of 395 m units | |  |  | hh audio systems (fixed) | 6 | 1 |  | 4 | |  | 0.04 | | 2% of 200 m units in use | |  | Integrated computer displays | |  |  |  | 401 |  |  | 12.2 |  |  | |  |  | all-in-one PC | 24 | 16 |  | 2 | |  | 0.3 | | 2.4% share of desktop (DigiTimes 26.8.2014) | |  |  | notebook | 14 | 5 |  | 62 | |  | 3.1 | | EIA, stock 2020 | |  |  | tablet (incl. E-book readers) | 10 | 2.6 |  | 337 | |  | 8.8 | | EIA, stock 2020 | |  | Integrated in means of transport | |  |  |  |  | |  | 0.5 |  |  | |  |  | traffic info & advertising display | 24 | 16 |  | 1.37 | |  | 0.2 | | [Note 8] | |  |  | passenger TV (plane, train) | 15 | 6.2 |  | 4.5 | |  | 0.3 | | long-haul train carriages 25k; planes 20k; 100 displays per carriage or plane | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | TOTAL | | |  |  | 2222 | m |  | 333.1 | km² |  | [Note 9] | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | [1] |  | Source: European Commission, Ecodesign Impact Accounting (EIA) - Part 1, prepared by VHK, 2014 (EIA). Stock data for the year 2020. | | | | | | | | | | | [2] |  | Security monitors: Estimate based on 30 m security cameras with monitor, 1 monitor/8 cameras, (average 42" per 15 cameras and one 21" spot monitor --> average 60 dm²-->33") | | | | | | | | | | | [3] |  | Medical displays (high resolution, grayscale-calibration option): Total annual sales is around 40 000 units of medical imaging equipment, of which 1000 MR, 2000 CT, 10000 X-Ray, 500 NM (e.g. PET), 25000 Ultrasound ('echo').[source: COCIR 2011]. Assuming 12-13 years life, 0.5 m units are in stock. There are around 0.4 m medical practices (of which 0.16 m in hospitals), 0.16 m dental practices, 0.05 m veterinary practices, which may not all need medical grade monitors. Total EU-stock for medical monitors is thus estimated at 0.8 m units. | | | | | | | | | | | [4] |  | Broadcasting displays (colour-calibration option) 0.1 m video/TV enterprises in EU (VHK, MEErP-Part 2, 2011) at assumed 80 screens/enterprise | | | | | | | | | | | [5] |  | Retail & car showroom displays: 3.5 m retail companies, 0.8 m car showrooms; 0.22m bank offices (ATM-displays not included here). Average 2-3 displays/outlet (varies between 50 per consumer electronics store and 0 for specialist food stores). Size is the area average between large (>55") and small (<24"). | | | | | | | | | | | [6] |  | 0.15 m displays at 10k train- & 2.8k subway stations (3-4 platforms/station, 3 displays per platform), 1 m displays at busstops (1 display/busstop), 0.05 m displays at 350 larger and ca. 2000 small airports (100 displays/large airport, 8 displays/small airport). Average size of 55" (83 dm²). | | | | | | | | | | | [7] |  | Stock 2020 data from EIA, size & share estimated by VHK. Only pixel-based displays are included. It is assumed that the other 3 billion status displays in the EU that are pilot lights (0.1-0.2W, 16h/d, 80% share) or LCD segment displays (0.3, 16 h/d, 10% share), LED segment displays (0.5-1W, 4h/d with APD, 10% share) and other non-pixel based displays are not intended to be included in the scope. Calculating with above data in brackets, they represent an energy use of (very) approximately 3 bn x 365 days x (0.1 x 16 x 80% + 0.3 x 16 x 10% + 0.7 x 4 x 10%) = 2.2 TWh/yr or --given the uncertainties of the estimate-- between 1 and 4 TWh per year. | | | | | | | | | | | [8] |  | 0.37m displays in 7k metro trains (35 k carriages, 2 displays/carriage) and 30k railway trains (150k passenger train carriages), 1 m displays in 0.5m buses (2 displays/bus). Average size 24" (16 dm²) in vehicles. | | | | | | | | | | | [9] |  | According to EIA (EFSBAU sheet), the Business-as-Usual (BAU) efficiency in the 2020 stock is 1.1 W/dm² (TV) and 2.4 W/dm² (monitor), so on-mode average is 1.43 W/dm² (basis 75% TV). Total 4 h/d for 365 d -->1460h/yr. Total 1 dm²=2.1 kWh/yr and 1 km2=0.21 TWh/yr. Hence the BAU 2020 electricity consumption is 0.21\*340= 71 TWh/yr in approximately on-mode. For an ECO-scenario EIA estimates (EFSECO-sheet) 0.6 W/dm² (TV) and 0.57 W/dm² (monitor), so on-mode average 0.6 W/dm². Total 4 h/d for 365 d -->1460h/yr. Total 1 dm²=0.88 kWh/yr and 1 km2=0.09 TWh/yr. Hence the ECO 2020 electricity consumption is 0.09\*340= 31 TWh/yr in approximately on-mode. This figure, based on the original IA-study 2012, needs to be verified/updated here. | | | | | | | | | | | Note that this is the first time a comprehensive overview of electronic display surface area was made. Results are partially based on estimates and should be treated with caution. | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Screen size

The accumulated EU viewable surface area of electronic displays grew from 21 km² in 1990 to 125 km² in 2010. This growth is comparable to moving from the surface of a suburb of 40’000 inhabitants such as Vilvoorde in 1990 to the surface of a town of one million inhabitants (e.g. 20% the surface of the Brussels region-161 km² for 1.2m inhabitants is just 20% higher).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48026.jpg)

Figure 6.5: EU television screen area and energy use 1990-2010-2030 .

This is a factor 5 growth. Because of the simultaneous energy efficiency improvement, the electricity consumption of televisions ‘only’ tripled. At its peak, in 2010, the EU electricity consumption for televisions and other electronic displays was more than 102 TWh/yr. This is comparable to the final electricity consumption of the Netherlands, a country with 17 million inhabitants.

In 2030 the total viewable surface area of electronic displays in the EU is projected to be 429 km²,a surface comparable to that of cities like Vienna (414 km², 1.76m inhabitants) or Prague (496 km², 1.25m inhabitants). With the new efficient technologies and the proper Ecodesign and Energy Label measures it is possible to get the electricity consumption and associated greenhouse gases, back to the pre-1990 level.

The next graph illustrates how the industry is pushing for larger sizes, whereas the consumer is hesitant. Sales data are based on an extrapolation of GfK 2015 and 2016 data. The distribution of TV-sizes on offer on the internet stems from the VHK research (see Annex 13). Note that the average diagonal size on offer was 50”, while the average size sold is about 36”.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48027.jpg)

Drivers to better, bigger and lighter, cheaper displays

Most consumers desire a product that is i) better, ii) bigger but lighter and iii) cheaper. For a product that plays such a big part in people’s life during –on average 4 viewing hours per day - the energy bill may be a secondary consideration at best and difficult to monetise.

I.Better: The step-changes in display-technologies, from CRT to Flat Panel Display (FPD), from plasma to LCD and from Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) to LED backlight, were unprecedented and unpredictable. Furthermore, there is a very noticeable difference in picture quality between PAL and full HD, especially increasing size. However the latest technologies improving picture quality are much less spectacular than those during the 2005-2010 period. As regards the resolution, the consumer associations state that less than half of the test persons detect the difference between HD and UHD at a normal viewing distance and seriously question whether it is worth it. On the higher contrast ratio and colour gamut they are more positive, but still detect some flaws in settings and again there are test persons –especially when viewing ‘normal’ (not super colourful) video content—that don’t see the difference. In addition, and unlike the situation with the jump from PAL to HD, questions could be raised whether UHD and HDR will become the new broadcasting standard within a television lifetime cycle, because of the huge investments required by the networks. Finally, there is the commercial failure of 3D-television to illustrate that the consumer is not following every technology trend that the industry proposes.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48028.jpg)

Figure 6.7: Average European Union TV weight (in kg) and viewable surface area (in dm²) over the 1990-2012 period with baseline projections for 2013-2030. (Source VHK)

II.Bigger: In 2003, when the first flat displays came to the market, what was considered a‘big’ residential television had a diagonal of 76 cm (30 inches), weighed over 60 kg and had a PAL-resolution of ~540 horizontal lines. In 2010, the average television was 84 cm (33 inch, 30 dm²) had a vertical resolution that was double (1080 pixels) and weighed only 15 kg. A CRT version of that TV display would not have passed most doors in the average EU home and needed strong men or a small forklift to get into the house. It is clear from the above that without the new lightweight and high-resolution products it would have been very difficult to trigger an ever increasing TV screen size. And of course a bigger TV display in the living room is many people’s wish, but consumer demand is not the only driver for a bigger display-size.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48029.jpg)

Figure 6.8: Recommended display size per viewing distance (data source: Consumentenbond 2018 27)

There is a very strong push from the Asian industry to advertise and display on the internet and in showrooms only the largest models. Huge investments are needed for manufacturing sites, of the order of 10 billion dollars that remain profitable only for a few years. There are no more than half a dozen of such plants worldwide, mostly in China. In 2017, the average size of televisions offered on-line in the Benelux was 51" (75 dm2 surface)
[16](#footnote17)
, whereas market research by GfK indicated that the average size actually sold in the same period was 33" (30 dm2 surface). From the discrepancy between the size of models on offer and the size of models actually sold, the limits of ‘bigger is better’ are becoming clearer.

Consumer associations such as Stiftung Warentest (DE) and Consumentenbond (NL) are increasingly critical about the added value of the latest trends in panel size, resolution and HDR
[17](#footnote18)
. Figure 3 shows the advised (‘ideal’) size for panels, depending on the viewing distance, which raises the question of how many households actually have a living room with a distance of 4 metres between the front of the couch to the TV thus justifying a 65” TV (a diagonal of 1.65m). Apart from the TV in the living room, there is of course the matter of the second and third television set in the house. Putting a 55” TV in the kitchen or bedroom is usually not very practical in the average household. A format between 32” and 42” is much more evident

. 

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48030.jpg)

   

Figure 6.9: TV unit sales Europe by diagonal size in inch, 2015-2016 (source: GfK POS, April 2017).

III.Cheaper: The global competition immediately led to a price war that eventually almost halved EU TV-prices. As an illustration: in 2002 a 30" (80cm diagonal) Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) TV sold retail for 3500 euro, whilst in 2018 it can easily be bought at less than 300 euro. A 2013 UHD television of e.g. 55" was priced at around 3500 euro, while today's version, even with HDR and curved panel, costs less than 800 euros. Overall, the average price of a TV-set in 2003 was 800 Euro
[18](#footnote19)
, while in 2017 the average global price decreased to 448 euro. In the price war, the last EU display-panel manufacturer (Philips) was driven out of the TV-business
[19](#footnote20)
 and Japanese market share in the EU shrunk considerably, in favour of the South-Koreans and Chinese
[20](#footnote21)
 
[21](#footnote22)
. As far as the display-panel is concerned, i.e. the part of TVs and monitors relevant for energy efficiency, all worldwide manufacturing is now in Asia, mainly in China and South-Korea. Legacy European brand-names like Philips, Grundig, Telefunken, Thomson, Brionvega, Séleco and also several Japanese names are just brand-names for which the rights have been bought by Chinese producers/merchants or Turkish assemblers
[22](#footnote23)
. Iconic brands such as Bang&Olufsen, Loewe and Metz are now partially or wholly Asian owned; they may still add some manufacturing value to Asian display-panels (e.g. audio, cabinet aesthetics) but in total account for less than 1000 EU-jobs for that activity. The Asian importers employ around 15-20k people in their distribution centres. Most jobs are in logistics (transport, packaging, relabelling, distribution); perhaps a few thousand EU jobs in these centres are in assembly, amongst others to avoid the 14% EU import duties on fully assembled televisions and computer monitors.
[23](#footnote24)
 Most distribution centres of Asian industries are in Eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia).

2.
   ENERGY LABELLING TRENDS

Current situation

As can be seen from the Figure below the development of the energy efficiency index over the last 3 years (2015-2017) is stagnating. 
[24](#footnote25)
 The cause is most likely the introduction of HDR in the market, in combination with the earlier UHD resolution. It takes time for R&D to ‘absorb’ these developments through smarter local dimming and the usual pace of improvement in electronics (‘Moore’s law’). Nonetheless, especially with the 2018 world soccer championships, it is believed that in 2018 energy efficiency improvement will pick up at the pace of before 2015. The lower energy use of the bigger screens could be the perfect excuse for soccer fans to invest in a new TV model.

Having said that, it is clear that the current Energy Label scheme, with 44% in ‘A’ and 40% in ‘A+’, does not have a large impact in moving the market, nor does it effectively inform consumers. The competition is fierce and investments are huge, and industry recognises the commercial benefits of having a better Energy Label classification.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48031.jpg)

 

Future with measures

[F](#_Ref517359514)
[igure](#_Ref517359514)
6.11 illustrates the expected trend in energy labelling under the ECO-scenario (only TVs and monitors in the scope). Under the Lenient scenario (with a credit of 1.5 instead of 1.2 for HDR) the lower classes will include more products (as more products are allowed on the market under Ecodesign). In the Ambitious scenario, where inefficient signage displays are in the scope, it is also expected that the lower energy label classes will be more populated.

This projection assumes a progression of 7.5% per annum improvement in energy efficiency – thus, each model in the 2018 database is improved by 7.5% for 2019, and a further 7.5% for 2020 and so-on. This rate of technology progression matches the levels observed in the market from 2011 through 2017 and also takes into account some new technology being introduced to televisions including quantum dots and logical pixels. Moreover, it assumes that half the models in the database adopt Automatic Brightness Control, which offers a power allowance of 15%.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48032.jpg)

Figure 6.11: Energy label class distribution of standard electronic display models available in the EU over the period 2010-2030 (actual 2013-2016 and projections 2017-2030) with proposed Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures.

3.
   MARKET DATA PER DISPLAY TYPE

Televisions

Sales of TVs, both in units and in value, have been declining since 2010 at a rate of 8-10% per year, except for the year 2014 when they went 5% up, but in 2015 they dropped again and are more or less stable at about 50% below the 2010 level. By contrast, in the period between 2006 and 2010, sales rose by 8 to 15% annually. Even in the first years of the economic crisis, i.e. 2008-2010, the high sales numbers continued, but it also explains in part the steep decline in sales since 2011. The replacement rate (apparent service life) of TVs was reduced from 9-11 years in the 1990s to 5-6 years between 2003 and 2010, but is now again rising to 8-9 years.

No CRT or plasma TVs were sold in the EU-2017
[25](#footnote26)
. Most (98.5%) are LED-backlit LCDs, with or without quantum-dots (‘QLED’) to enhance the colour range, and 0.5 million are OLED-TVs. GfK reports that in 2017 some 59% of TVs sold were ‘Smart TVs’
[26](#footnote27)
, 2.9 million (9%) are ‘curved’ and one-third have UHD resolution. TVs larger than 60” are 4% of the 2017 market volume.

Stock calculations indicate on average 2.0 TVs installed per household in 2010 (from 1.3 TVs in 1990). In 2030, an average ownership of approximately 3 TVs per household is expected.

  

Computer monitors

In 2016 the apparent consumption (EU market) of computer monitors amounted to 9.6 million units (in 2010 around 25 million units). The average msp of imported and ‘produced’ units is around 170 euro/unit, which –with a multiplier of factor 2, suggesting an average consumer price (incl. VAT) of 340 euros/unit. The decline in sales was caused by the economic crisis and by the sharp fall of sales of desktop computers (with monitors) versus All-in-One computers, notebooks and –more recently—tablet and slate computers.

At the beginning of the 1990s the average (CRT) computer monitor size was 13-14” (5 dm² surface area). In 2012, the average monitor had a 21” diagonal (10 dm² surface area), a number that is expected to grow to at least 24” in 2020 and to 27” (20 dm²) in 2030. For computer monitors, where high resolution is especially attractive, the market share of UHD in 2015, 2020 and 2030 is estimated at 20%, 50% and 100% respectively.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48033.jpg)

Signage displays and hospitality TV

Public/signage display panels are generally large electronic displays, either used indoor or outdoor, alone or in a composition called "video wall", to show content to many persons at once. In train stations and airports they are increasingly replacing mechanical signage technologies, such as the split flaps (also known as "Solari-boards").

Other typical applications are in meeting rooms, museums, churches, or in retail applications. Compared to residential TVs, signage displays offer a higher luminance/ contrast ratio--up to 2500 cd/m2 or more- to clearly display images in bright ambient conditions. A higher luminance increases the energy consumption. Although market information is scarce, it is believed that signage displays are a fast expanding market in the EU. European manufacturers, i.e. integrating nowadays Asian-produced panels, are Barco (BE) or Solari (IT). A US-based Taiwanese competitor is DynaScan. Samsung and LG are also major players in the signage display market.

Hospitality TV is the term used for TVs in hotels or hospitals. Compared to residential TVs, these displays offer additional connectivity interfaces (welcoming to the hotel, activation of services via a remote command). But many televisions in hotels and hospitals, however, are just normal residential TVs, possibly without a tuner. The table below gives an estimate of the typical size, the installed stock and the total display surface area per market segment of signage and hospitality in the EU 2020. The total 2020 stock is estimated at 51 million units. At an average replacement rate of 7 years this means sales in the order of 7-8 million units per year. In order to be complete also the stock data of projectors are added in the table.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48034.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48035.jpg)

|  |
| --- |
|  |

Figure 6.12: Modular signage displays for cinema (right) and home-cinema (left) applications (source: Samsung, ISE 2018 fair)

4.
   MARKET ACTORS

Manufacturers

Information on manufacturers is contained in sections 2.1 and 2.5.2. In addition, the following key figures on the global market leaders can be supplied:

Samsung reports a 2017 revenue of €181bn euros and €40.5bn euros in profit, achieved with 320k employees in 84 countries. LG (revenue 45bn euros and 1.8bn euros profit. Japanese Sony 2016-2017 revenue was just below 60bn euros; for the 2017-2018 Sony business year ending 31 March 2018, the company expects an operating profit of 4.5bn euros, the highest since 1998. Sony employs 128k people. Japanese Panasonic (250k employees) reports a revenue of €52bn and profit of €1.2bn euros. In 2016 the world's largest electronics contractor, the Taiwanese Foxconn, took a controlling interest in Japanese Sharp and the joint venture (Sakai Display Products) is building a new 10.5G factory in China. In 2017 Foxconn made a controversial deal with US President Trump to build a $10bn flat screen factory in Wisconsin in exchange for $3bn in tax-payer incentives. Foxconn has 1.3 million employees and a revenue of €107bn euros (2016) and an operating income of close to €5bn euros.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48037.jpg)

Figure 6.13: Global shipments LCD TVs by brand 2016.

The EU monitor market, also not a sector with EU manufacturing, is characterised by a significant number of importers and vendors. Market leaders are South-Korean Samsung and LG, each with 15-16% of the global, and probably also the European monitor market. Furthermore, computer monitors are manufactured by Japanese, US, Chinese and Taiwanese companies, such as: Philips NEC, EIZO, Iiyama Envision, ViewSonic, AOC, HannsG HP, Dell, Apple, Fujitsu, Acer (‘Packard Bell’, ‘eMachines’, ‘Gateway’, ‘Acer’), Lenovo, Asus, BenQ. EU-resellers with their own monitor brands include computer manufacturer Wortmann (DE), panel-assemblers, such as Qbell (IT) and EWE (RS), whole-sellers Maguay (RO) and service companies, such as S&T-Maxdata (AT).

Importers and distribution centres

Information on importers and distribution centres is mainly contained in section 2.5.1, including footnote 5.

As mentioned, Eurostat data on extra-EU exports and imports are unreliable and confusing. The following serves only as an illustration of that fact and is by no means to be taken as a representation of reality.

Eurostat’s Prodcom statistics state an apparent EU consumption (production+imports minus exports) of 38 million TVs in 2016. In 2010 this was almost twice as high, i.e. 74 million TVs. In both cases, the average manufacturer’s selling price ('MSP') of the produced units was listed by Eurostat as around €222 euros/ unit.

The official Eurostat data shows that TV imports in 2016 amounted to 69 million units (20 million in 2010), with mostly Turkey (using Asian panels) and China as the countries of origin. TV exports in 2016 amounted to 56 million units (6 million units in 2010) to Turkey and the Middle East in that same year. As mentioned before, these figures are confusing; in reality all panels are imported into the EU.

Retailers

Section 2.5.4 gives information on retailers, mainly for TVs.

Additional information: Market leader Mediamarkt-Saturn reports a gross margin of 19%. This implies that they purchase e.g. televisions for €28bn and sell for €34m. The €6bn gross margin goes to employees (around €40-50k/employee), capital investments and profit.

5.
   Does efficiency of electronic displays lead to higher prices?

No clear correlation has been identified between energy efficiency class and retail cost of electronic displays and of televisions in particular.

Topten published a report on the European TV market 2007-2013
[27](#footnote28)
 where it analysed this specific aspect. Although the report is not very recent, no market revolution happened in this respect, so the findings can still be considered valid.

As figure 6.14 shows, there is a clear correlation between price and display diagonal size, but the retail price is also related to a number of additional features, such as definition level, support of HDR, "smart features" such as processor type and memory, interfaces, etc.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48038.jpg)

Figure 6.14: correlation between display size and cost (Topten on GfK data)..

However figure 6.15 shows that no evident relation appears when comparing prices and energy class, with the average class of the most efficient TVs less expensive of the second highest class or comparable to the third highest even. The same report goes further in the analysis and the correlation of price with size is confirmed when comparing displays of the same class, with a general tendency to lowering the cost year after year.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48039.jpg)

Figure 6.15: Average price according to energy classes for TVs in the range from 30 to 50 inches (Topten on GfK data).

Annex 7:
   The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Framework

The Ecodesign Framework Directive and Energy Labelling Framework Regulation are framework rules, establishing conditions for laying down product-specific requirements in regulations adopted by the Commission. The Commission's role in the implementation of delegated and implementing acts is to ensure a maximum of transparency and stakeholder participation in presenting a proposal, based on generally accepted data and information, to the European Parliament and Council for scrutiny. The figure below gives an overview of the legislative process.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48040.jpg)

Figure 7-1: Overview of the legislative process

Energy labelling delegated acts are usually adopted in parallel with ecodesign implementing measures laying down minimum energy efficiency requirements for the same product group. This is done to ensure a coherent impact of the two measures: energy labelling should reward the best performing products through mandatory rating, while ecodesign should ban the worst performers.

The process starts with establishing the priorities for Union action in this area. Priority product groups are selected based on their potential for cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and following a fully transparent process culminating in working plans that outline the priorities for the development of implementing measures.

A first list of priority product groups was provided in Article 16 of the Ecodesign Framework Directive in force at that time
[28](#footnote29)
. Subsequently, the (first) Ecodesign Working Plan 2009-2011
[29](#footnote30)
, the (second) Ecodesign Working Plan 2012-2014
[30](#footnote31)
 and the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019 were adopted by the Commission after consultation of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum (composed of MS and stakeholder experts).

The products listed in the three plans (1st working plan: 1-10; 2nd working plan: 11-18; 3rd working plan: 19-25) can be found in Table 7-1 below.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48041.jpg)

There were also a number of conditional products listed in the 2nd Working Plan that the Commission committed to study closer before deciding to launch full preparatory work (such as thermal insulation, power generating equipment). In the 3rd Working Plan, the Commission committed to assess certain ICT products in a separate track to determine the best policy approach for improving their energy efficiency and wider circular economy aspects and a potential inclusion in the Ecodesign working plan.

Once the product group has been selected, a preparatory study is undertaken by an independent consultant, also involving extensive technical discussions with interested stakeholders. The preparatory study follows the MEERP. Subsequently, the Commission's first drafts of ecodesign and energy labelling measures are submitted for discussion to the Consultation Forum, consisting of Member States and other stakeholders' representatives.

After the Consultation Forum, the Commission drafts an impact assessment, which after approval of the IAB is taken forward to the inter-service consultation together with draft implementing measures. In this and subsequent steps, the Parliament's functional mailboxes for delegated/implementing acts are copied on each message from the Commission services. After the inter-service consultation, stakeholders are alerted when the draft measures are published in the WTO notification database.

After the WTO notification phase is completed, the two procedures follow different paths. The draft energy labelling delegated act is discussed in a Member State Expert Group where opinion(s) are expressed and consensus is sought but no vote is taken. The draft ecodesign measure is submitted for vote to the Regulatory Committee of Member State experts.

The European Parliament and Council have the right of scrutiny for which a period of up to four months, if requested, is foreseen. Within this time the co-legislators can block the adoption process by the Commission. Parliament committees sometimes discuss draft objections to measures (light bulbs and fridges in 2009) or vote to reject a measure (vacuum cleaners in 2013
[31](#footnote32)
). On one occasion an objection was even adopted in plenary, blocking the measure for televisions in 2009
[32](#footnote33)
.

Today, 30 Ecodesign Regulations, 17 Energy Labelling Regulations, 3 voluntary agreements and 2 tyre labelling regulations have been implemented. An overview of these measures can be found in the Table below.

Table 7-2: Overview of applicable measures

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Framework legislation | | |
| 2017/1369 | Energy labelling Framework Regulation | |
| 2009/125/EC | Ecodesign Framework Directive | |
| 1222/2009/EC | European Parliament and Council Regulation on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters | |
| 30 Ecodesign implementing regulations | | |
| 1275/2008 | Standby and off mode electric power consumption | |
| 107/2009 | Simple set-top boxes | |
| 244/2009 | Non-directional household lamps (amended by 859/2009/EC) | |
| 245/2009 | Fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity discharge lamps and for ballasts and luminaires (amended by 347/2010/EU) | |
| 278/2009 | External power supplies | |
| 640/2009 | Electric motors (amended by regulation 4/2014/EU) | |
| 641/2009 | Circulators (amended by regulation 622/2012/EU) | |
| 642/2009 | Televisions and television monitors | |
| 643/2009 | Household refrigerating appliances | |
| 1015/2010 | Household washing machines | |
| 1016/2010 | Household dishwashers | |
| 327/2011 | Fans | |
| 206/2012 | Air conditioning and comfort fans | |
| 547/2012 | Water pumps | |
| 932/2012 | Household tumble driers | |
| 1194/2012 | Directional lamps, light emitting diode (LED) lamps and related equipment | |
| 617/2013 | Computers and servers | |
| 666/2013 | Vacuum cleaners | |
| 801/2013 | Networked standby electric power consumption | |
| 813/2013 | Space heaters | |
| 814/2013 | Water heaters | |
| 66/2014 | Domestic cooking appliances (ovens, hobs and range hoods) | |
| 548/2014 | Power transformers | |
| 1253/2014 | Ventilation units | |
| 2015/1095 | Professional refrigeration | |
| 2015/1188 | Solid fuel local space heaters | |
| 2015/1189 | Local space heaters | |
| 2015/1189 | Solid fuel boilers | |
| 2016/2281 | Air heating products, cooling products, high temperature process chillers and fan coil units | |
| 2016/2282 | Use of tolerances in verification procedures | |
| 17 Energy labelling supplementing regulations | | |
| 1059/2010 | Household dishwashers | |
| 1060/2010 | Household refrigerating appliances | |
| 1061/2010 | Household washing machines | |
| 1062/2010 | Televisions and television monitors | |
| 626/2011 | Air conditioners | |
| 392/2012 | Household tumble driers | |
| 874/2012 | Electrical lamps and luminaires | |
| 665/2013 | Vacuum cleaners | |
| 811/2013 | Space heaters | |
| 812/2013 | Water heaters | |
| 65/2014 | Domestic cooking appliances (ovens and range hoods) | |
| 518/2014 | Internet energy labelling | |
| 1254/2014 | Domestic ventilation units | |
| 2015/1094 | Professional refrigeration | |
| 2015/1186 | Local space heaters | |
| 2015/1187 | Solid fuel boilers | |
| 2017/254 | Use of tolerances in verification procedures | |
| 3 Voluntary Agreements (Report to the EP & Council) | | |
| COM (2012) 684 | Complex set top boxes | |
| COM (2013) 23 | Imaging equipment | |
| COM(2015)178 | Game consoles | |
| 2 tyre labelling amending regulations | | |
| 228/2011 | Wet grip testing method for C1 tyres | |
| 1235/2011 | Wet grip grading of C2, C3 tyres, measurement of tyres rolling resistance and verification procedure | |
| Previous legal acts still in force | | |
| 92/42/EEC | | Hot-water boilers efficiency Council Directive (Ecodesign) |
| 96/60/EC | | Household combined washer-driers (Energy labelling) |
| 2002/40/EC | | Household electric ovens Commission Directive (Energy labelling) – will be repealed on 1/1/2015 |

MSAs, designated by the Member States, will verify the conformity of the products with the requirements laid down in the implementing measures and delegated acts. These can be done either on the product itself or by verifying the technical documentation. The rules on Union market surveillance and control of products entering the Union market are given in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008
[33](#footnote34)
. Given the principle of free movement of goods, it is imperative that MSs' market surveillance authorities cooperate with each other effectively.

Annex 8:
   Existing Policies, Legislation and Standards on electronic displays

A number of directives and regulations affect electronic displays.

1.EU ecodesign and energy labelling regulations

The current Ecodesign Regulation and Energy Label Regulation set some generic requirements and minimum energy efficiency requirements for televisions and television monitors.

Horizontal ecodesign regulations - In addition to those requirements, some horizontal aspects of energy using products are regulated. Horizontal measures are:

·Electric power consumption standby and off mode (Ecodesign Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008
[34](#footnote35)
);

·Networked standby (Ecodesign Regulation (EU) No 801/2013
[35](#footnote36)
).

Currently electronic displays not covered by the Ecodesign requirements on televisions and television monitors are subject to such horizontal requirements. Following Commission policy, the stipulations of these regulations are integrated vertically here, i.e. in the proposed new regulations for any electronic display in scope of the proposed Ecodesign Regulation.

2.Other EU policies

The EU Ecolabel for televisions
[36](#footnote37)
 exists since 2009 and, with the latest amendment is now valid till 31.12.2019. In fact, the Ecodesign regulation (EC) No. 642/2009 points to the indicative energy efficiency index (EEI) in the Ecolabel regulation as the benchmark values
[37](#footnote38)
. For 31.12.2010 the Ecolabel regulation gives a minimum energy efficiency index of 0.64 (compare class D-limit 0.6). For 31.12.2018 the Ecolabel limits for HD televisions are indices of 0.3/0.23/0.16 and for UHD televisions 0.3/0.3/0.23 pertaining to screen diagonals of <90/90-120/≥120 cm. This indicates that, even with new features, the efficiency improvement is at least a factor two and for large HD screens around a factor three over the 2010-2018 period.

The Low Voltage Directive
[38](#footnote39)
 regulates health and safety aspects including e.g. mechanical, chemical, noise related or ergonomic aspects. Apart from this, the directive seeks to ensure that the covered equipment benefits fully from the Single Market. The LVD covers electrical equipment operating with a voltage between 50 and 1000 V for alternating current and between 75 and 1500 V for direct current. Falling under this category, electronic displays are covered by the scope of the LVD, but there is no overlapping in terms of the type of requirements.

The WEEE Directive set requirements on e.g. recovery and recycling of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment to reduce the negative environmental effects resulting from the generation and management of WEEE and from resource use. The WEEE Directive applies directly to household refrigerating appliances. Ecodesign implementing measures can complement the implementation of the WEEE Directive by including e.g. measures for material efficiency, thus contributing to waste reduction, instructions for correct assembly and disassembly, thus contributing to waste prevention and others.

The RoHS Directive
[39](#footnote40)
 restricts the use of six specific hazardous materials and four different phthalates found in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). Electronic displays are directly covered by the RoHS Directive. There is no overlapping requirement with a proposed ecodesign regulation.

The REACH Directive
[40](#footnote41)
 restricts the use of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) to improve protection of human health and the environment. The REACH Directive applies directly to household refrigerating appliances. There is no overlapping requirement with a proposed ecodesign regulation.

The EMC Directive
[41](#footnote42)
 sets requirements for the Electro-Magnetic Compatibility performance of electrical equipment to ensure that electrical devices will function without causing or being affected by interference to or from other devices. The EMC Directive applies directly to household refrigerating appliances. There is no overlapping requirement with a proposed ecodesign regulation.

The ETS sets a cap on the total amount of certain greenhouse gasses that can be emitted by installations. This cap reduces over time, so that the total emissions fall. Within this cap companies receive or buy emission allowances which they can trade with one another as needed. They can also buy a limited amount of international credits. The ETS does not directly apply to household refrigerating appliances, however, it does apply to electricity production. Hence, if the electricity consumption of electronic displays reduces, the electricity companies will have to trade less or the price of carbon will reduce under the cap system. Consequently, the price of electricity will drop.

3.Policies at EU MS level

At Member State level there are only voluntary endorsement labels for all environmental aspects, including energy.

BLUE ANGEL (Germany)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48042.jpg)

Blue Angel Criteria were issued in 2012
[42](#footnote43)
. TVs smaller than 50” (diagonal 127cm) should have at least EU Energy Label class ‘A’. When they are larger than 50” they should be at least classified as ‘A+’. In all cases they should use less than 100W in on-mode. In off-mode and passive standby the power should be 0.3W or less. The TV must have ABC. Luminance should be controllable through regulation of the backlight intensity (e.g. not through a shutter-like construction which does not diminish energy use). There should be no mercury. The use of cancerogenous and other harmful substances under the CLP Regulation as well as the use of halogenated flame retardants, etc. are not allowed to obtain this voluntary label.

NORDIC SWAN (Scandinavia)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48043.jpg)

Criteria for the Nordic Ecolabel on TVs (and Projectors) were introduced in 2013 and are valid till 2020.
[43](#footnote44)
 They require at least an ‘A+’ EU Energy Label classification. The non-energy requirements are more extensive than those for the Ecolabel, e.g. they require that ‘The LCD panel must be produced in such a way that the greenhouse gases NF3 and SF6, if part of the production process, are abated by a system that is an integrated part of the production process. It is the responsibility of the manufacturing company to ensure that the abatement system is installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers (of the abatement system) specifications. The manufacturer of the LCD shall declare the amount of NF3 and SF6 purchased in relation to amount of LCD (m2) produced over one year. Also the abatement system must be described in detail.’

4.Non- EU policies

Hereafter details of the most recent energy efficiency limits for televisions outside Europe are given. It is a small selection. The Standards & Labelling database 
[www.clasponline.org](http://www.clasponline.org)
 distinguishes 47 countries with 135 TV-efficiency measures, most of which are now mandatory, such as minimum efficiency requirements, comparative energy labels and endorsement labels. In 2004 there were just 21 countries with 41 voluntary measures. Countries with active energy efficiency policy tend to address televisions and other displays.

UNITED STATES (2018)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48044.jpg)

Televisions

Energy Star is an endorsement label managed by US EPA. It aims to award the top-25% of the market and is renewed every 3-4 years.

The final version 8.0 specification for TV and HTD was published 23 Feb. 2018 and the effective date will be 1 March 2019.
[44](#footnote45)

The scope is TVs with (‘TV’) or without (‘Home Theatre Display’ HTD) tuner, as well as hospitality TV/HTD with download facilities. Signage displays and computer monitors are covered by a different Energy Star specification.

Maximum On Mode Power requirement Pon\_max, in Watts, for products where the native vertical resolution is smaller than 2160 lines

Pon\_max= 78.5\* tanh(0.0005\* (A-140) + 0.038]+14

where A is viewable area in square inches (1 square inch=0.254 x 0.254= 0.0645 dm²; 1 dm²=15.5 square inches)

Maximum on mode power requirement, in Watts, for products where the native vertical resolution is s greater than or equal to 2160 lines (in other words UHD or more ) is 1.5\*Pon\_max.

The passive standby limit is 0.5W. The active standby, low mode limit is maximum 3.0W.

For products with a luminance in the Brightest Selectable Preset Picture Setting (the greater value of L DEFAULT\_RETAIL or L BRIGHTEST\_HOME ) less than 350 cd/m2 -->65% luminance. If more than 350 cd/m2 the setting will be 228 cd/m2

ABC average luminance at 3,12,35,100 lux is 50% of Brightest Selectable Preset Picture Setting.

Download Acquisition Mode (DAM) Requirements for Hospitality TV/HTDs: Wake up from standby is allowed for DAM and energy use should be less than 0.04 kWh/day

TV/HTDs with Standby-Active, Low Mode shall use the following method to demonstrate that they continue to meet the ENERGY STAR requirements after software updates.

Monitors and signage

The most recent US Energy Star Monitor criteria v7.0 were effective from 2015. For most electronics products the Energy Star criteria are ambitious in the beginning (<25% compliance) but after 4 years some 70-80% of the models comply. This goes not only for displays but also for computers and imaging equipment. The figure below gives the v7.0 limit values not only for computer monitors but also for signage displays and televisions.

INDIA (2016-2018)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48045.jpg)

India has a star rating that is used for MEPs (1-star) and label rating, i.e. a 5 star rating (1=worst, 5=best), managed by BEE. Latest update for televisions is from 26.5.2016 (validity recently prolonged till 31.12.2018).

The television rating is based on Annual Energy Consumption AEC in kWh/year, calculated from 6h ‘on mode’ power use Pa (in Watts) and 12h ‘standby mode’ power use Ps (in Watts) per day over 365 days per year. In formula:

AEC= (6\*Pa + 12\*Ps)\*0.365

The star-rating for an LCD/LED TV for the period 26.5.2016 till 31.12.2018.

1-star: AEC<3A+2.63

2-star: AEC<2.7A+2.63

3-star: AEC< 2.4A+2.63

4-star: AEC<2.2A+2.63

5-star: AEC<1.9A+2.63

Where A is viewable surface in dm². The first term relates to on-mode energy. For instance at 28 dm2 (diagonal 32”) the 5-star limit is~24.3W (per year 1.9 x 28 =53.2 kWh=53200 Wh → per day 53200/365=145 Wh → per hour 145/6=24.3W). For 100 dm2 (diagonal 60”) the 5-star limit is ~87W.

The second term relates to the maximum standby-use of 0.6W (2.63=0.6W x 12h x 365) .

SOUTH KOREA (2013→now)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48046.jpg)

South-Korea uses energy efficiency grades (1=best, 5=worst). Per 1.1.2013 there are 5 grades plus a superlative ‘Energy Frontier’ grade (best). MEPS and labelling are managed by KEMCO. Between 2012 and the current 2013 grades there has been a 50-60% increase in efficiency levels required.

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Korea regulation on TV efficiency and standards and labels (TVs without network features) | | | | |
| On-mode power  R≤ | | Standby power  (passive-standby mode) |  | Grade |
| July 1, 2012 | January 1, 2013 | July 1, 2012 | January 1, 2013 |  |
| R ≤ 91 &  on-mode power 90 W | R ≤ 35  on-mode power 25 W | 1.0 W | 0.5 W | ENERGY FRONTIERb |
| R ≤ 130 | R≤ 60 | 1.0 W | 0.5 W | 1 |
| R ≤ 165 | R ≤ 75 | N/A | N/A | 2 |
| 165 ≤ R 205 | 75 R≤ 100 | N/A | N/A | 3 |
| 205 ≤ R 260 | 100 R≤ 205 | N/A | N/A | 4 |
| 260 ≤ R 440 | 205 R≤ 440 | N/A | N/A | 5 |
| R=On Mode Power Consumption (Watts)/Square Root of Screen Area (sq. Metres) | | | |  |
| b=Energy Frontier for products with 50 cm (∼20 in.)<screen size in diagonal <180 cm (∼70 in.) | | | | |
| Source, MKE 2012 |  |  |  |  |

CHINA (2013→now)

China MEPS and and energy label for flatscreen TV since 2013
[45](#footnote46)

The Chinese energy label classifies TVs on a scale from grade 1 (most efficient) to 3 (just above the minimum allowed efficiency level) (CNIS, 2010). The Chinese energy efficiency standard and label defines TV efficiency as luminous intensity relative to the power (cd/W): the most efficient TV is the one that is brightest relative to its power. To assess the efficiency of a Chinese TV the luminance, the screen area and the On mode power are considered. (Cd = Cd/m2 \* m2). In Europe brighter TVs need to be more efficient than darker ones in order not to get a worse classification (because higher brightness usually requires higher power input), while in China, additionally to larger TVs, also brighter TVs can use higher power without getting ‘punished’ with a bad grade.

The Chinese Energy Efficiency Index EEI for LCD TVs is
[46](#footnote47)

EEILCD=Eff/EffLCD,ref

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48047.jpg)

where

−EffLCD,ref =1.1 cd,

−Eff=(L\*S)/(PK-PS), in cd,

with

−L: average brightness of the screen, in cd/m2;

−S: Screen size, in m2;

−PK: On-mode power, in W;

−PS: Power consumption for signal processing, in W. PS has different values when the interface is different.

For on-mode power testing the new version of <GB 24850> (GB 24850-2013) was implemented in October 2013. The grade limit values for EEILCD are 2.7 (Grade 1, MEPS), 2.0 (Grade 2) and 1.3 (Grade 3).

The IEC 62087 standard is used and the average On mode power over 10 minutes is considered in both the EU and CN label. However, the brightness and contrast settings are different for the On mode power test and the luminance measurement: In the Chinese energy label brightness and contrast settings are adjusted to a 8-greylevel-signal (EU; factory setting ‘out of the box’ or ‘home mode’ if a forced menu is applicable). Automatic Brightness Control (ABC) is off, as in the EU.

Apart from the different brightness and contrast settings, different signal input terminals are used (GB 24850: RF; EU: HDMI) and different voltages are applied (220 V in China, 230V in the EU).

To conclude, the limit values of Chinese Televisions are not comparable to those of other parts of the world.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48048.jpg)

JAPAN

Japan Top Runner 2012, Energy Conservation Centre Japan (ECCJ)

TopRunner is a relatively simple labelling to promote consumers understanding for energy‐efficiency products. The path to achieve the target until the target year depends on the corporate decision. Unlike MEPS-based regulations, less efficient products under the target value could be sold if many more efficient products above the target value were sold.

(source: Presentation by Tadashi Mogi, Director of Energy efficiency and conservation division, METI, Tokyo, IEA-4E conference, 8/11/2012)

The formula used in assessing the energy efficiency is:

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48049.jpg)

Source: Nina Zheng, Nan Zhou and David Fridley, Comparison of Test Procedures and Energy Efficiency Criteria in Selected International Standards & Labeling Programs for Copy Machines, External Power Supplies, LED Displays, Residential Gas Cooktops and Televisions, China Energy Group, Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley (CA), US, March 2012.

Global television policies

  

Table 8.1 – Overview of policies relating to televisions for economies investigated

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Economy | Policy type\* | | Year published | | Policy reference source | Metric(s) used |
|  | | APEC economies | | | |  |
| Australia and New Zealand | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2012 | ANZ 62087.2.2-2011 | Annual energy consumption calculated from on power and standby (active, passive), compared against reference TV energy of same screen area. |
| Canada | Mandatory MEPS | | | 2011 |  | Standby power only |
| China | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | GB24850-2013 | On power compared against reference TV of same screen area, screen technology and luminance |
| Hong Kong, China | Voluntary comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | Hong Kong Voluntary Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme for Televisions August 2013 | Same as EU with minimum standby power requirements |
| India | Voluntary comparative efficiency label (mandatory from January 2015) | | | 2014 | Schedule No. 11 Color Televisions, Revision 4. | Annual energy consumption calculated from on power and standby, compared against reference TV energy of same screen area and screen technology. |
| Japan | Mandatory MEPS | | | 2010 |  | On power compared against reference TV of same screen area, screen resolution, number of additional functions, screen technology and screen refresh rate |
| Malaysia | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | Electricity (Amendment) Regulations 2013 | Energy efficiency calculated from screen area per kWh annual energy consumed, compared against reference TV energy efficiency. Annual energy consumption calculated from on power and standby (active, passive). |
| Mexico | Mandatory MEPS | | | 2013 | NOM-032-ENER-2013 Limits for electric power equipment and appliances that require standby power. Test methods and labelling | Standby Only |
| New Zealand | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | ANZ 62087.2.2-2011 | See Australia |
| Russia |  | | |  |  |  |
| Korea | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2012 | MKE 2012-320, Regulation on energy efficiency standards and labelling | Energy efficiency index calculated as on-mode power per square root of screen area. |
| Singapore | Mandatory comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | Singapore Statute 557 | On mode power requirement based on screen area |
| Chinese Taipei | Voluntary high efficiency endorsement label | | | 2009 |  | On mode power requirement based on screen area. Standby power requirement. |
| The Philippines |  | | |  |  | Still being developed |
| Vietnam | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | | 2013 | TCVN 9536:2010 | Energy efficiency compared against reference TV of same screen area. Includes passive standby limits. |
| USA | Voluntary high efficiency endorsement label | | | v6 2014    v7 2015 expected | ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements  Product Specification for Televisions and Displays (including monitors and Signage displays) | On mode power requirement based on screen area. Includes standby power and Download Acquisition Mode energy requirements. |
| USA - California | Mandatory MEPS | | | 2012 | CEC-400-2012-019-CMF 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations |  |
|  | Non-APEC economies | | | |  |  |
| EU | Mandatory MEPS and comparative efficiency label | | 2009 MEPS  2010 Label | |  | Energy efficiency compared against reference TV of same screen area. Includes passive standby limits. |

\*Policy types: MEPS = Minimum Energy Performance Standards; CL = Mandatory Comparative Labels; VL = Voluntary Comparative Labels; VE = Voluntary Endorsement Labels; VC = Voluntary Certification; VS = Voluntary Specification; F = Financial Incentive; P Government Procurement; FA = Fleet Average.

Note: No data was found for Indonesia and Thailand so they are not included in the table.

Table 8.2 – Observations on similarities between TV policy approaches

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Economy | MEPS efficiency threshold | Lowest efficiency  class | Highest efficiency class | Comments |
| APEC economies | | |  |  |
| Australia | Low | Low | Very high | Ambitious criteria and the highest number of efficiency levels (fifteen). |
| Canada |  |  |  | Standby only. |
| China | High | High | Medium | Comparison is based on IEC 62087 testing of on-mode power, however China uses a different test standard which means comparison may not be representative. |
| Hong Kong, China |  | Very low | Low | Largely based on EU efficiency metric ranging from the labelling class G to B. |
| India |  | Medium | Low | Staggered metric with specification of future efficiency criteria for 2014, 2015 and 2017. |
| Japan | Low |  |  | The large number of variables creates 20 CRT TV efficiency categories and 64 LCD and plasma TV categories |
| Malaysia | Low | Low | Low | Energy efficiency measured in screen area per unit energy - the inverse of the more common power/energy per unit screen area. |
| New Zealand |  | Low | Very High | See Australia |
| Russia |  |  |  | No mandated efficiency metric |
| Korea |  | Very Low | Very High | Power per square root of screen area (unique). |
| Singapore |  | Low | High | Based on EU efficiency classes from C to A++ |
| Chinese Taipei |  |  | Medium | Based on ENERGY STAR v5 |
| The Philippines |  |  |  | Not yet published |
| Vietnam |  | Low | Low | Largely based on EU efficiency metric ranging from the energy class D to B. |
| USA |  |  | High | ENERGY STAR is based on a revised ABC calculation which greatly reduces the TV on-mode power declared by manufacturers. One of the most ambitious criteria. |
| USA - California | Medium |  |  | Baseload allowance is high, allowing a high number of small screens to qualify |
| Non APEC economies | | | | |
| EU | Very low | Very low | High | New mandatory higher efficiency classes to be introduced. One of the most ambitious criteria at the higher end. |

5.
   COMPARISON

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48050.jpg)

Figure 8.1: Comparison of benchmarks (‘best’) for energy efficiency televisions in the EU and non-EU

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48051.jpg)

Figure 8.2: Comparison of proposed EU labelling scheme vs .some existing non-EU schemes for a 40”(44 dm²) HD TV. The values are the class limits, in Watt electric power input

  

Annex 9:
   Evaluation of current regulations (REFIT)

In the context of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme (REFIT)
[47](#footnote48)
 and its Better Regulation policy
[48](#footnote49)
, the Commission is committed to evaluate in a proportionate way all EU activities intended to have an impact on society or the economy. This should be done on the basis of the life cycle of the intervention. Many evaluations are triggered by individual clauses in legislation formulated as requiring a review. For the review of an existing Ecodesign measure, three out of the five standard evaluation criteria foreseen by Better Regulation need to be addressed, i.e. whether the measure has been effective, efficient and relevant. Indeed, the coherence and EU added-value criteria have already been addressed at the framework level, i.e. in 2012, when the Ecodesign Directive has been reviewed
[49](#footnote50)
 

This annex presents the information collected during the review work that allows evaluating the existing regulations (EC) No. 642/2009 and (EU) No. 1062/2010.

1.
   Effectiveness

This section focuses on two key objectives of the current regulation: ensuring a transition towards more energy-efficient televisions, and achieve significant energy savings. Other impacts are quantified but are not analysed in depth.

The previous preparatory study and the previous IA were performed in a period of “technology revolution" triggering unprecedented sales, which were not predicted. The improvement potential was estimated at "20-30%, impact of new display technologies not know yet" (SEC(2009)1012 final, pag 3). Expected electricity consumption was 132 TWh by 2020 (BAU, 27 MSs) and 87 TWh (132 -43 -2) as a result of Ecodesign+Energy Labelling. Unexpected decline of some technologies (i.e. Plasma) and unexpected improvements in others (i.e. backlighting in LCD), with the stimulus from the policy instruments, is leading to a better-than predicted 2020 situation (i.e. 73.8 TWh/yr in 2018 compared to 81.7 predicted in 2009 based on 2007 data, decreasing to 77 TWh/yr in 2020). Comparison of targets and results is complicated also by the reference scenarios (25 countries in the 2005 analysis, 27 in the 2020 prospects, 28 in all current calculations). Overall the 2020 targets are exceeded by about 5 TWh.

1.1 Market transformation and innovation

Recital (6) of Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 on the Ecodesign requirements of televisions says that “Annual electricity consumption related to televisions was estimated to be 60 TWh in 2007 in the Community, corresponding to 24 Mt CO2 emissions. If no specific measures are taken to limit this consumption, it is predicted that electricity consumption will increase to132 TWh in 2020. The preparatory study shows that use-phase electricity consumption can be significantly reduced.”

Figure 9.1 below is taken from the impact assessment report from July 2009
[50](#footnote51)
. It shows the BAU-scenario (orange line) with electricity consumption of indeed 60 TWh in 2007, 132 TWh in 2020 and 148 TWh in 2025. The chosen scenario ‘Min+Lbl’ there is a conservative projection (brown line ‘Min+Lbl cons.’) and an optimistic projection (red line ‘Min+Lbl opt.’). So electricity consumption for the chosen scenario varies between 79 and 87 TWh/yr in 2020 and between 73 and 86 TWh in 2025. The saving versus the BAU-scenario is thus between 43 and 51 TWh in 2020.

Please note that this relates only to televisions, i.e. not monitors or signage displays.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48052.jpg)

Figure 9.1:
   Development of on-mode electricity consumption of TV for several scenarios until 2025, where "BaU" is the baseline and "Min + Lbl opt" (lowest red line) the scenario that led to the current measures (source: SEC(2009)1011 impact assessment published 2009 but based on market data 2006-2007)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_48053.jpg)

Figure 9.2: Electricity consumption of electronic displays 1990-2025, according to 2009 impact assessment(based on best data 2007) and real data 2017 as assessed in this study.

In figure 9.2, the red ‘optimistic’ line, which represents the 2007 IA scenario ‘accompanying’ the current regulations (available up to 2025), is compared to the blue line that gives the actual electricity consumption that could be established in this impact assessment for the period 2007-2017. From 2018 until 2030, the blue line represents the estimated projection in a ‘Business-as-Usual’(BAU) scenario without new policy action.

For reasons of better comprehension this blue line has been made to match the ‘BAU’ energy on-mode consumption scenario for televisions as presented in Annex 4 (Table 4.1) with standby energy use added. Projections were made with the mathematical stock model in that Annex.

Making accurate projections for a fast-changing technology operating in what has proven to be an unpredictable TV market is complex. Nevertheless, the bandwidth projection in figure 9.2, which has been condensed in a single line in Annex 4, is the best that can be done.

However, in 2017 the energy savings were more than was expected for that year in 2007 and are moving downward faster than expected. The main reason is that the first generation of flat-screen televisions of 2005-2010, with efficiencies of 4 W/dm2 or more (see main report, chapter 2), is now being replaced by TVs that are almost twice as big (in dm² surface, e.g. switching from 30 to 40” diagonal) but with an efficiency of around 1 W/dm2 (i.e. on average four times higher). Counting an average 8-10 year product life, that stock substitution will last until about 2023-2024. As explained in chapter 2 of the main report, in a BAU-scenario with no or little commercial (Energy Label) or regulatory (Ecodesign) incentives to improve energy efficiency, the energy consumption will go up again because the average size and number of TVs in Europe will continue to go up. After the lowest point in 2025, where the energy saving is an estimated 59 TWh, the energy consumption of TVs in 2030 may (in a conservative scenario) even be higher than in 2020.

The first conclusion can be that, despite the unexpected surge in sales and ever-increasing display sizes, the measures (together with the autonomous market trend) have been successful and have even exceeded expectations. For 2025 the EU will be nowhere near the predicted 148 TWh from the 2007 BAU scenario. It will not even consume the 71 TWh/yr predicted in the chosen policy scenario but instead 59 TWh; 25% lower than predicted.

A second conclusion is that policy intervention is needed to ensure that energy efficiency improvement continues, because otherwise there is a real risk that energy consumption of TVs will go up again before 2030.

2.
   Efficiency

How efficient has the regulation been in delivering the above mentioned benefits?

Already in the 2009 impact assessment it was predicted that the average price per television would hardly be effected by energy efficiency requirements. In fact, due to the fierce global; competition the price went further down with respect of the period before the measures.

In that sense there is no payback period or a need for calculating the Least Life Cycle Costs.

Of the €45 that the consumer pays extra –compared to BAU— €7.5 goes to VAT(20%), €17 to retail, €3.5 to wholesale and €17% to industry. At almost 20 million unit sales per year this means an extra revenue of €150m for the tax office, €340m for retail, €70m for wholesale and another €340m for industry.

The administrative burden of the current regulations (‘BAU’ in section 6) was calculated at less than €0.4m annually, divided over the various stakeholders. This is a negligible fraction compared to revenues in the electronic display business.

Overall the 2020 energy efficiency targets are exceeded by about 5 TWh.

3.
   Relevance

Is the current regulation (still) relevant?

The review study and the Impact Assessment have shown that the regulation is effectively supporting a transition towards more energy-efficient electronic displays, and that it is on track to deliver substantial savings. The results also indicate that higher savings could be achieved by revising the requirements and correcting imperfections in the regulation. This forms the basis of the proposal for an updated regulation. It is made possible and necessary by technical progress and international developments: development of more efficient components and systems.

The review study also revealed that the regulation can play a major role in reducing halogenated flame retardants, thus contributing to the Circular Economy package.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)
       Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC), Final Report, March 2012. available from 
    <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/download.do;jsessionid=Xsj8RodUb9p9C8bLidTO3m64uBmXJ0VY-fA9bvU7oDTxQpMpnajH!781246111?documentId=1228634>
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)
       Study assessing consumer understanding of a draft energy label for electronic displays, available from 
    <https://www.centerdata.nl/en/projects-by-centerdata/energy-label-electronic-displays>
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)
       
    <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52015SC0143>
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)
       Data from DigitalEurope, analysed by Commission and VHK.
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)
     
       Requirements laid down in Regulation 642/2009 were based on a linear regression line
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)
     
       Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, COM/2015/0614 final
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)
     
       Regulation (EC) /2017/1369
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)
     
       
       COM(2016) 773 final, Brussels, November 2016.
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)
     
       The final report of the study is available 
    [here](https://www.centerdata.nl/en/projects-by-centerdata/energy-label-electronic-displays)
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)
     
       
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-ecodesign-and-energy-labelling-refrigerators-dishwashers-washing-machines-televisions-computers-and-lamps_en>
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)
     
       Scale ranging from not important, somewhat important, important, very important, don’t know or no opinion and no answer
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)
     VHK, Ecodesign Impact Accounting – status May 2015, for EC, DG ENER, November 2015. Download: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Ecodesign%20Impacts%20Accounting%20%20-%20final%2020151217.pdf
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)
     
       including recovery, recycling and preparing for re-use (Article 8.5.)
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)
     
       The production phase of electronic displays, of any kind, is almost entirely outside the EU (i.e. Asian countries)
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)
     
       The 2011 EU market for digital photo frames (DPFs) was estimated at approximately 4 million units, at a value of 0.3 million euros in consumer prices. This was the last year in which GfK reported on the DPF market in Europe.
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)
     
       VHK inventory of NL and BE on-line catalogues Dec. 2017-Jan. 2018. See Annex 13
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

     
       
    <https://www.consumentenbond.nl/tv/ideale-kijkafstand>
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)
     
       Nominally. Corrected for inflation ca. € 1000 in Euro 2017.
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)
     
       In 2014 Philips (NL) rendered its share in the joint venture to its Taiwanese partner TP Vision, thus ‘officially’ giving up TV-manufacturing.
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)
     
       Samsung and LG have together a 50% market share. Sony is the only active Japanese TV-maker (manufacturing panels not in Japan). The only TV-panel manufacturing on Japanese soil is by Sharp, which has been bought in 2017 by the Taiwanese Foxconn. Foxconn also made a controversial deal with the US administration to build a heavily subsidised display-panel factory in Wisconsin. Panasonic recently stopped TV production. Other Japanese brands such
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)
     
       For more background: Sea-Jin Chang, Sony vs Samsung: The Inside Story of the Electronics Giants' Battle For Global Supremacy, Wiley & Sons, Singapore, 2008.
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)
     
       Turkish TV-assemblers include Koç Holding (e.g. Grundig, Arçelik, BEKO brands), Vestel (misc. Brand names) and Profilo holding (Telefunken). They import South-Korean or Chinese display-panels, then make and mount casing and non-display electronics, then export (also) to the EU. Vestel claims to be the largest producer on the EU-market with 8 million units sold under various brand names.
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)
     
       Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 in EU Official Journal L 282 of 31 October 2017. This version applies from 1 January 2018. In Europe the import duties for (LCD) televisions are, and have been for over a decade, 14%. This probably one of the reasons why many Asian companies have screwdriver factories in the European Union, because import tariffs on the panels and other assemblies are 0% or at the most (e.g. for OLED panels) 3%.
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)
     
       Energy Label classes of EU sales of electronic displays were estimated from various sources Over the period 2013-2017 various databases were compiled by researchers from Intertek, CLASP, GfK, DigitalEurope and VHK. None of these databases are perfect in a sense that they give a 100% representative, unbiased, comprehensive, sales-weighted picture of the EEI of EU sales. Nonetheless, it is believed that they represent the best information currently available. Note that the classification is absolute and does not take into account when certain classes were available
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)
     . CCFL-backlit (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) TVs and very little rear-projection TVs being produced.
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)
     Made to be connected to the Internet.
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)
     
    <http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/European_TV_market_2007%E2%80%932013_July14.pdf>
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)
     
    [Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005L0032)
    . OJ L 191, 22.7.2005
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)
     
    [Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Establishment of the working plan for 2009-2011 under the Ecodesign Directive. COM/2008/0660 final. 21 October 2008](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52008DC0660)
    . (Ecodesign Working Plan 2009-2011)
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)
     
    [Commission Staff Working Document Establishment of the Working plan 2012-2014 under the Ecodesign Directive - SWD(2012)434/F1](http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=10102&year=2012&number=434&language=en)
     (Ecodesign Working Plan 2012-2014)
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)
       This objection was defeated in ENVI committee by 43 votes against and 4 in favour.
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)
     
       The motivation of the objection was that the EP wanted to delay the discussion of the draft labelling measure so that it would have to become a delegated act under the recast post-Lisbon Energy Labelling Directive in 2010. The measure was indeed subsequently adopted as a delegated act.
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)
     
    [Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1521025655801&uri=CELEX:32008R0765)
    . OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)
     
       
    [Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 of 17 December 2008 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1521191695475&uri=CELEX:32008R1275)
    . OJ L 339, 18.12.2008, p. 45.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)
     
       
    [Commission Regulation (EU) No 801/2013 of 22 August 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby, off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment, and amending Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1521191873275&uri=CELEX:32013R0801)
    . OJ L 225, 23.8.2013, p. 1.
:   [(36)](#footnoteref37)
     
       Commission Decision 2009/300/EC of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions (notified under document number C (2009) 1830) (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 80, 28.3.2009, p. 3; [validity prolonged until 31.12.2019 by 
    [Commission Decision (EU) 2018/59 of 11 January 2018](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0059)
    ]
:   [(37)](#footnoteref38)
     
       Commission Decision of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions (notified under document number C (2009) 1830) (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/300/EC). OJ L 80, 28.3.2009, p. 3; [validity prolonged till 31.12.2019 by Commission Decision (EU) 2018/59 of 11 January 2018]
       Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1371 of 10 August 2016 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for personal, notebook and tablet computers (notified under document C(2016) 5010) (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 217, 12.8.2016, p. 9–37 [valid till 9 August 2019]
:   [(38)](#footnoteref39)
     
       
    [Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0035)
    . OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357. (LVD)
:   [(39)](#footnoteref40)
     
       
    [Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065)
    . OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88. (RoHS Directive)
:   [(40)](#footnoteref41)
     
    [Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R1907)
     OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1–849 (REACH Regulation)
:   [(41)](#footnoteref42)

    [Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0030)
    . OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 79 (EMC Directive)
:   [(42)](#footnoteref43)
     
       
    <https://www.blauer-engel.de/de/produktwelt/elektrogeraete/fernsehgeraete/fernsehgeraete>
    . RAL-UZ 145 Ausgabe Juli 2012
:   [(43)](#footnoteref44)
     
       
    <http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/product-groups/group/?productGroupCode=071>
    . Version 5.5, 20 June 2013 - 30 June 2020
:   [(44)](#footnoteref45)
     https://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/televisions\_specification\_version\_8\_0\_pd
:   [(45)](#footnoteref46)

     
       Based on Michel, A. et al., Finding the most energy efficient TV in China and in Europe: not such an easy job, ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY proceedings, 2013.
:   [(46)](#footnoteref47)
     
       Hu Bo/Zhao Feiyan, Energy-efficientTV panels, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Appliance Guide, bigee.net, 12/2014.
:   [(47)](#footnoteref48)
     
       https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/overview-law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/reducing-burdens-and-simplifying-law/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly\_en
:   [(48)](#footnoteref49)
     
       
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/better-regulation-why-and-how_en>
:   [(49)](#footnoteref50)
     
       COM(2012) 765 final, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Review of Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast)
:   [(50)](#footnoteref51)
     SEC (2009) 1011 final

[Top](#document2)

Table of Content of the Annexes (2/2)

Annex 10:
   IAB opinion of 4 September 2013 & adjustments made
   94

Annex 11:
   Administrative burden
   96

Annex 12:
   Consumer understanding of the energy label (displays)
   100

Annex 13:
   Background: Energy databases and testing
   102

Annex 14:
   Background: Energy Flows, Luminance, HDR
   113

Annex 15:
   Background: Circular economy and other non-energy impacts.
   130

Annex 16:
   Acronyms & conversion table
   140

Annex 17:
   References
   143

  

ANNEXES

Annex 10:
   IAB opinion of 4 September 2013 & adjustments made

The Impact Assessment Board (IAB) gave its positive opinion on the first IA report in the meeting of 4 September 2013, but stated that the report should be improved in a number of respects.

First, it should better explain why new and more extensive regulation would be needed given the limited role of ecodesign and energy labelling measures in energy savings in the past. Second, it should clarify how the proposed options would address these issues and strengthen the assessments of their impacts, particularly with regard to compliance costs and the relevance of labelling information for products for which new features are likely to be an important buying factor. Finally, the report should more systematically address the need for, and the impact of, the proposed measures for material resource efficiency. As regards the presentation, the report should be clearer, more focussed and less technical. Acronyms and specific terms should be explained and the report should add links to, or summaries of, the main background studies.

The first issue has been addressed in paragraph 2, where the section on problem drivers and regulatory/market failures was expanded. Amongst others it shows more explicitly how the functional convergence of the various types of electronic displays (televisions, computer monitor, digital photo frames) is a potential threat to the effectiveness of existing measures. It also demonstrates that the industry, despite an impressive track record in reacting to legislation, does not pro-actively address the environmental consequences of new features in display design when not mentioned in legislation.

The second issue brought forward by the IAB is now addressed in Chapter 4, showing how the proposed options address the problem of functional convergence through expansion of the scope as well as illustrating the effective and responsible manner in which requirements on new features (3D, bigger screens, higher resolution, network connectivity, etc.) are phased in. The latest status in pricing, performance and efficiency of the latest UHD TVs has been addressed. Chapter 5 better explains how the proposed option makes compliance testing different, but not necessarily overall more costly. In this context it is relevant, amongst others, that the new dynamic test standard in the proposed option is expected to become the new test standard for electronic displays around the world. The baseline scenario does take the effects of global developments in testing and minimum requirements into account.

The need for material resource efficiency measures, i.e. optimisation for better recycling mainly through requirements dismantlability of certain components mentioned in WEEE and on flame retardants is addressed extensively in the report. At the same time it is also demonstrated that with the new display technologies a large number of ‘old’ environmental issues were solved or significantly reduced and do not require action. Concerns of stakeholders on e.g. enforceability of non-energy related requirements have been taken into account and in the current report it is explained more clearly how and why the initial list of possible requirements was amended in this context.

As regards the level of technical detail, the main IA report now only presents technical knowledge that is indispensable for the understanding. Relevant background information has been moved to Annexes. For other issues, the report refers more often to an extensive list of literature references to explain technical details. To improve understanding of the technical terms in the text of the IA report, a glossary was added and an overview of acronyms.

Before the 2013 Impact Assessment Board meeting, the impact assessment report was subject to the consultations of the Ecodesign Inter-service Impact Assessment Group. No comments on the substance of the report were provided. None of the members of the Group accepted an invitation to a meeting to discuss the impact assessment report.

Further background on why new and more extensive regulation would be needed given the limited role of ecodesign and energy labelling measures in energy savings in the past is given below.

  

Annex 11:
   Administrative burden

In the impact assessment for the new Energy Label Regulation (SWD(2015)/139 of 15.7.2015) the administrative burden of the measures under the new Energy Label Regulation are indicated. Hereafter the findings are applied to the group of electronic displays.

Administrative costs are defined as “the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities and citizens in meeting legal obligations to provide information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties”
[1](#footnote2)
 The Commission's in-house Administrative Burden Calculator was used in the impact assessment to calculate administrative cost for businesses and public authorities for measures 1 and 3.

Label transition for the A-G label (Measure 2)

Suppliers will have to supply two labels instead of one for a period of 6 months at a cost of € 0.3 to print a label
[2](#footnote3)
. For ~16-17 million electronic displays sold in 6 months, this means a total of approximately € 5 million for suppliers to temporarily provide a second label for a transition of one label to another. Furthermore, suppliers may have to supply some replacements labels on request of dealers depending on the delivery channel for replacement labels.

Dealers have to re-label around 2.5% of products on stock/display or on the internet. An average time of five minutes per product is assumed at a tariff of €14.30/h, resulting in €1.20 per label and –for 0.82 million electronic displays—a total of €1 million.

Mandatory product registration database (Framework Labelling Regulation 2017/1369)

The key burdens generated by this option are expected to be similar to those for the product registration database for radio equipment
[3](#footnote4)
:

–Training staff to become acquainted with the system: this is a one-time investment and not considered significant.

–Depending on the design for the operation of the database, upload manufacturer information and obtain manufacturer code. This is again considered not significant.

–Upload product specific information: this implies selecting appropriate information, formatting, and actually uploading the information. This is considered to be significant.

For electronic displays an average figure of 1000 models
[4](#footnote5)
 per year is deemed an appropriate estimate
[5](#footnote6)
. Two hours of collection and registration time per model family is assumed
[6](#footnote7)
, which corresponds with the estimated administrative costs borne by suppliers for Australia's product registration database, i.e. €60/model 
[7](#footnote8)
. For the 1000 models this results in €60’000 per year.

The burden for Member States' market surveillance authorities to obtain documents is significantly reduced by this measure. It is, however, assumed that they spend the freed-up time on other market surveillance activities instead thereby contributing to higher compliance rates.

The costs for the Commission to set up the database are likely to be similar to the product registration base for radio equipment, adjusted for the number of models to be registered and kept in the database. The cost for the product registration base for radio equipment was estimated at € 300.000 investment and € 30.000 annual maintenance costs for registration of 5000 models per year
[8](#footnote9)
. Based on the above estimate of 1000 models per year, the share of electronic displays in the total Commission investment is € 60’000 and the maintenance costs are estimated at € 6’000 per year.

Expand the database study, Commission costs

The budget for the current three-year study covering six products was € 500.000
[9](#footnote10)
. The cost for the Commission to cover about 30 products would thus be approximately € 1 million per year. For electronic displays (1 of 30 product groups) it would amount to € 33 000/year.

Change 'least life cycle cost' requirement

This measure does not require administrative effort additional to business-as-usual. However, there are likely to be compliance costs for business in order to meet the more stringent requirements. Such compliance costs are likely to be negligible for product groups that have energy labels, where almost all businesses would, because of the energy label, in any case already go beyond the minimum ecodesign requirements. For product groups only covered by ecodesign requirements (and no energy labels) the compliance cost in terms of redesign may be significant for some businesses. A recent case study for laptops estimated that the total design costs for compliance with the seven applicable EU internal market directives and regulations, including ecodesign, is € 8 million per year
[10](#footnote11)
. Assuming that: 1) one quarter of that cost is due to ecodesign
[11](#footnote12)
 ; 2) changing the least life-cycle cost requirement to break-even point may increase the design cost by half; and 3) laptops constitute about one third of the ecodesign regulation for computers, the total additional compliance cost above business-as-usual for the 15 regulations for product groups which have no energy label could be € 45 million per year
[12](#footnote13)
.

Support joint surveillance actions Horizon2020

Joint surveillance actions fit the requirements and description of 2014 Horizon2020 call on the energy efficiency market uptake segment of "Ensuring effective implementation of EU product efficiency legislation" for which the indicative cost was 1.5-2 million euro for the EU budget
[13](#footnote14)
. Such a call would be opened every year with the aim to support several joint actions per year. The share of electronic displays (1 of 30 product groups) is estimated at € 60’000/year.

External laboratory testing

Manufacturers of electronic displays use self-declaration to declare relevant values for Ecodesign and Energy Label measures. All manufacturers have facilities for in-house testing, used not just for declaration of Ecodesign and Energy Label values but also for broader Research and Development (R&D) in general.

Market surveillance costs

No precise figures on total Member States expenditure on market surveillance are available, since only about half of the Member States share information of available budgets. In 2011 this was estimated at € 7-10 million
[14](#footnote15)
. Based on (incomplete) data collected from Member States it is currently likely to be around € 10 million. Electronic displays are one of thirty products for surveillance. Assuming the effort to be equally distributed per product group this amounts to €330’000 of market surveillance costs for surveillance of electronic displays.

Introducing reviewed legislation

Both Ecodesign and Energy Label regulations for televisions already exist, so the infractructure of notified bodies and market surveillance authorities of televisions is already in place in Member States and is assumed to be adequate also for omputer monitors. Furthermore, the legal format is a ‘regulation’ and thus no transposition in national law is required. As a placeholder it is assumed that in total for all 28 Member States an amount of € 100 000 is required for training and answering questions on the changes in the regulations.

Legal uncertainty: the German judgment

In February 2014 the German court judged that - irrespective of given non-standardized signal paths like DVI or SDI, monitors with HDMI fall under 1062/2010 EU Energy Labelling Regulation (and, due to same definition, logically also under Regulation 642/2009).

Figure 11.1 shows a description of contested facts, with the image of the advertisement (LED monitor showing content considered TV images, but marketed as computer monitor and not a TV monitor). As result, some manufacturers include the energy label in the display box of products marketed as "computer monitors", although these products are, in principle, out of scope of the regulations 642/2009 and 1062/2010.

On the appeal of the plaintiff, the judgment of the 31st Civil Division of the district court of Cologne - 31 O 111/123 - announced on 19.09.2013 is amended:

The defendant is being judged

1.in the event of the avoidance of a fine imposed by the court for each case of infringement, up to a maximum of € 250,000, as a substitute for statutory order, or of orderly imprisonment, to its managing directors, for a period of six months, to stop, advertise monitors as shown below without indicating the energy efficiency class for these devices

2.to the claimant € 196.35 plus interest at the rate of five percentage points above the respective base interest rate since 12.04. 2013 to pay.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49002.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49003.jpg)

Figure 11.1: A page from the on-line database of the German Minister of Justice (Source: 
<http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/olgs/koeln/j2014/6_U_189_13_Urteil_20140226.html>
 )

Annex 12:
   Consumer understanding of the energy label (displays)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49004.jpg)

Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 states that when preparing delegated acts, the Commission shall test the design and content of the labels for specific product groups with representative groups of Union customers to ensure their clear understanding of the labels. A study was so performed in 2017 to inform the design of a new energy label for electronic displays that provides information that consumers find useful in their purchase choice.

An online survey was conducted with approximately 600 potential consumers in each of 7 countries (4081 respondents in total): Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden (Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.1: Countries in which the user survey was performed.

Respondents were asked how important they considered a number of possible features when buying an electronic display. The features proposed and relevance results are presented in 
[Figure 12.2](#_Ref517112186)
 (the features proposed include also information not suitable of the Energy label but possibly indicated in a retailers label of a tipical brick&mortar shop).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49005.jpg)

Figure 12.2: Features that consumers find most important when buying a TV or computer display (sample of 4081 respondents).

Some features that were considered relevant are in reality not applicable to a general label (e.g. presence of Internet interface is not applicable to non-smart products such as most of the computer monitors) or are not relevant to differentiate products (e.g. in off-mode or in standby mode, different models may differ for tenths of Watt). Features such as resolution, size, aspect ratio are considered relevant to compare products and use of a standardised external power supply is considered relevant by other one third of respondents but less than energy use information. No relevant difference in understanding emerged from displaying energy use in HDR mode and in the traditional (double scale) one in respect to just one scale.

Figure 12.3: Content of the proposed energy label as resulting from the consumer-understanding and connect relevance study (source Centerdata).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49006.jpg)

About half or respondents did not understand the difference between energy efficiency and power consumption information: they inaccurately believed that the same display was more energy efficient and consumed less energy relative to another, whilst this is only the case when comparing two displays with the same display area. 3 different graphical variants of the same indicator were tested, but, as mentioned, some features would be not included to avoid an overcrowding of the label, detrimental for the understanding of the crucial aspects.

Figure 12.3 shows the label content proposed as result of the survey. The graphical layout, however, has to be harmonised with all other products being rescaled as from 2020 and for which an analogous survey was done later.

  

Annex 13:
   Background: Energy databases and testing

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49007.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49008.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49009.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49010.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49011.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49012.jpg)

EU TELEVISION DATABASE, January 2018 (source: VHK 2018)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49013.jpg)

  

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49014.jpg)

The following tables summarise the model characteristics of computer monitors in the EU Energy Star database for specification V6.0 (2014-2016) and V7.0 (2014-today). Data were extracted from 
[www.eu-energystar.org](http://www.eu-energystar.org)
 in January 2018.

Note that per 20 February 2018 the US-EU International Agreement on the Energy Star for Office Equipment elapsed. This database is thus the most recent but also the last database of its kind.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49016.jpg)

COMPUTER MONITOR TESTING INTERTEK 2017

In 2017 and in a contract for the EC, Intertek tested 30 state-of-the-art computer monitors with the aim to identify possible problems in including monitors (not just televisions) in the proposed Commission Regulation on electronic displays.
[15](#footnote16)

The final test included 11 models with UHD resolution (3840 x 2180 pixels = 8.37 MP), 8 models with HD resolution (1920x1080=2.1 MP) or lower and 11 models with a resolution between HD and UHD. In the latter category 9 models with aspect ratios of 2.4:1 for wide formats, 7 of them 'curved' are found. All the other monitors have a 16:9 aspect ratio and are, with one exception, not curved but flat.

The average resolution of the test population is 5.1 MP (3073 x 1571 pixels) at an average screen diagonal of 28.2 inch (71 cm) and average surface of 21.3 dm2.

Following manufacturer's instructions and pre-sets, only 10 out of 30 models (3 UHD, 7 below UHD) meet the Commission's proposed relevant EEI level. This is shown in the graph below

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49017.jpg)

However, the average home-mode (test) peak luminance is 267cd/m², while the average maximum peak luminance of the test population is 296 cd/m². This means the measurements are done at 90% of the maximum peak luminance, while testing at 65% would be allowed. Given the fact that over 80% of a display’s energy input is used to generate light this can make a large difference.

Hence, the test report indicates that with some detailed attention to factory-set luminance levels, at least 19 out of 30 models (5 UHD, 14 below UHD) would pass. In table 1 VHK has added tentative values, based on the assumption that 80% of a display’s energy input is used to generate light/luminance. 
[16](#footnote17)

Average UHD screen peak luminance is close to 330 cd/m²; for HD peak luminance is around 250 cd/m2. This means a factor of ~1.3 between UHD and HD luminance. The difference between UHD and HD minimum energy requirement is 1.22. The average specific luminance in cd/W for UHD is similar to that of HD, both 1.6 cd/W (rounded).

The average on-mode power is 36.9 W and the average energy efficiency index EEI is 1.2. The average 'manual' standby or off mode power is 0.24 W, with only 1 model using more than 0.5W. The standby power after an auto power down (APD) is 0.47 W, with 6 out of 30 models exceeding 0.5W.

Only 2 out of 30 models featured automatic brightness control (ABC). In both cases the ABC control characteristics is acceptably progressive but should start at a much higher ambient light level. Overall, the ABC test results support the argument that the ABC characteristics could mirror that for TVs.

External AC-to-DC external power supplies (EPS) with a product specific DC interface connection (i.e. not a standardised DC interface such as USB) were found on 14 out of 30 models. All of these monitors have power requirements compatible with USB C power delivery (PD) Profiles 1 to 5 (10 to 100W) and with DC modification they could operate with a standard EPS.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49018.jpg)

  

Annex 14:
   Background: Energy Flows, Luminance, HDR

1.ENERGY FLOWS

The Sankey diagram below was composed by VHK in the context of a technical assistance contract for this impact assessment. It is an estimate, with certain subjective aspects, of the energy flows in an LCD-LED electronic display. The aim is to illustrate that, viewing the display mainly from the perspective of a lamp and comparing to the theoretical minimum, the efficiency of the display is less than 1%. In other words, there is still ample room for innovation and improvement.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49019.jpg)

The diagram illustrates that over 80% of the electricity input goes to generate light and –not taking into account sound—only a small part goes to signal processing.

Starting point for the light generation is the LED backlight. The process to produce visible light through Light Emitting Diodes is called electroluminescence, the transformation of electrons into photons, using p and n junction of the diode. The radiometric efficiency, a.k.a. the external quantum efficiency EQE, involves the injection efficiency IE, i.e. the share of electrons injected in the active region of the diode, the internal quantum efficiency IQE of creating photons from the electrons and the extraction efficiency LEE of moving the photons outside the LED.

EQE=EI x IQE x LEE

The exact values of the separate efficiency values varies between 60 and 90%, depending on the various design parameters. The EQE will be around 40% for 110-120 lm/W.

The efficacy of light sources is commonly expressed in lm/W, i.e. lumen visible light output per Watt electricity input. Lumen is the physical radiant power, but corrected for the sensitivity of the human eye. The human eye is most sensitive to green (wavelength 550 nm).

The maximum theoretical efficacy of creating visible light from electricity is thus 683 lm/W at a monochromatic 'green' wave length of 555 nm. However, to create a full colour gamut also the other colours are necessary and then, depending on the spectrum realised --let us assume 'white'-- the white light efficacy drops by half to around 340 lm/W or less.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49020.jpg)

 

Figure 14.2: Photopic response to different light wavelengths in human eye (source: 
<http://www.ledinside.com/news/2017/6/color_in_next_generation_micro_led_microdisplays>
).

The practical efficacy is lower because 1 W of physical radiant power cannot be converted loss-free into visible light. At the moment 240 lm/W, so a white light efficacy of 75%, is a value that is seen to be short-term achievable in literature and in laboratory settings.
[17](#footnote18)

The best available LEDS in television backlight units (BLUs) have a white light efficacy around 200 lm/W. In computer monitors, typically a more low-end product than a television, the average value may be in the range of 100-150 lm/W. The Sankey-diagram, which is purely intended to be illustrative of the order of magnitude assumes 100 lm/W, so a white light efficacy of 29%.

This is a simplification, based on a test pattern with white light. In a movie, depending on the display technology, the efficacy of the backlight may vary with the colour-mix, even at the same luminance. This is certainly the case with OLEDs or in the future microled subpixels, but also with the more crude local dimming control the backlight colour mix can be set, e.g. with RGD LEDs. CREE 300 lm/W. Samsung 220 lm/W.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Table 14.1: Light Transmission of various LCD components | |
| Polarizer | 43% |
| Colour filters | 25% |
| TFT aperture ratio | 80% |
| Liquid crystal | 95% |
| Analyzer | 80% |
| Overall (colour LCD) | 5% |
| Source: Pochi Yeh, Claire Gu, Optics of Liquid Crystal Displays, 2nd ed., 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. | |

Once the light is produced it goes through a whole range of light guide optics, polarizers, colour filters, thin film transistor (TFT) ‘shutter’ arrays, liquid crystal panels, lenses, etc..

The table below, representing 2010 technology, estimates that overall in a colour LCD only 5% of the light input actually reaches the eyes of the users.

In recent years, according to Park et al. 
[18](#footnote19)
, there has been considerable improvements e.g. though reflective polarizers
[19](#footnote20)
 such as 3M’s Vikuiti™ Dual Brightness Enhancement Film (DBEF) that can bring 30-50% improvement. However, it has to be rerecalled that the starting point, i.e. 5% transmittance, is low.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49021.jpg)

2.LUMINANCE

The biggest threat of HDR to energy use is that it might actually increase the need for a certain luminance level (expressed in cd/m2 or ‘nits’), because it offers a larger brightness range when running the test video. Thus the importers claim that a generous efficiency allowance should be made for HDR in order not to deprive the European consumers of this new technology.

With a more sophisticated solution, i.e. an LED -TV with local dimming or an OLED TV, the size of the white rectangle does matter: A small white spot (e.g. a sun in the distance) might be as bright as 1400 cd/m2, while a full-screen white rectangle only gives 350 cd/m2. In fact, a good UHD/HDR television ‘only’ uses some 20% more than a HD/SDR television
[20](#footnote21)
 when HDR content is displayed.

Given that 80% of the display’s energy input goes into generating light, the second most important performance parameter –after the surface area—is luminance (a.k.a. ‘brightness’). Luminance is measured in candela per square meter (cd/m²) also known as ‘nits’. The candela is the luminous flow measured in one direction
[21](#footnote22)
, i.e. for a display the direction is typically perpendicular to the screen. For testing, the first important question is the setting of the luminance. In the EU proposal the setting is either ‘out of the box’ or the ‘home mode’, but perhaps more important is the boundary condition that the brightness should not be less than 65% of the ‘brightest possible setting’, i.e. usually the setting in a well-lit ambient a shop).

For luminance measurement the test pattern is important. In IEC 62087:2011 the luminance should be tested with a test pattern of three white bars [100% bright] on a black [0% bright] background. The Average Picture Luminance (APL) of this test pattern is around 50% and Jones and Harrison argued that this is too high for average video content and usually enough to trigger maximum (100%) brightness settings.
[22](#footnote23)
 Therefore the newer IEC 62087:2015 standard proposes that the 10-minute video content that is used for on-mode power testing is also used for assessment of the luminance. The APL of this video-content is 34%.

Further confusion is added by the HDR standard that refers to the ‘maximum’ or peak luminance, expressed in cd/m2 or ‘nits’, of an electronic display. A higher peak brightness means the TV can make the picture look brighter, which can help with visibility in an ambient with lots of light and/or, or to make small highlights in the picture look good (which is important for HDR).

Testers of 
[www.rtings.com](http://www.rtings.com)
 recommend, for instance a brightly lit (indoor) ambient: over 400 cd/m2 in a test pattern with a 50% white window on a black background window. For HDR contrast over 1000 cd/m² in a 2% white window is considered good.

The UHD Alliance, an industry group comprising the likes of Dolby, LG, Netflix, Panasonic, Samsung and Warner Bros, writes in specifications for the award of the ‘Ultra HD Premium’ –which contain also demands e.g. on wider colour gamut WCG
[23](#footnote24)
-- that a UHD-TV peak luminance should either have a 1000-nit peak brightness and less than 0.05 nits black level or a 540-nit peak brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level. The latter would typically apply to OLED-TVs, with pixels that can be ‘off’ (really black) while the OLED screens have problems to achieve the light levels of the (anorganic) LEDs.

‘Peak luminance’ is no longer well defined in standards, because for half of recent UHD-HDR televisions the peak luminance is now adapting, with local dimming enabled, to the brightness/size of the content. Figure 1 shows a comparison between ‘QLED’ (the latest series of Samsung LED TVs), OLED and LED.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49022.jpg)

Figure 14.4: Peak luminance of typical QLED, OLED and LED UHD-HDR televisions 2017, in cd/m² at different test patterns= size of white window as % of the total surface (data: 
[www.rtings.com](http://www.rtings.com)
, graph: VHK 2018)

If a scene contains only a small area of maximum brightness, the maximum luminance in that small surface, e.g. 2 or 10%, can be as high as 1400 nits. If the maximum brightness of the image applies to 50% or 100% of the screen area, then the peak luminance of the same device can be as low 350 nits.

Relevant definitions are

·HDR Real Scene peak brightness: The maximum luminosity the TV can obtain while playing a movie or while watching a TV show in HDR at a window size of 2%. Measured with local dimming and HDR signal. Good value: > 550 cd/m² Noticeable difference: 80 cd/m²

·SDR (Standard Dynamic Range, i.e. not HDR) Real Scene peak brightness: as above but with a non-HDR signal. Good value: > 300 cd/m² Noticeable difference: 30 cd/m²

·HDR peak window 2/10/25/50/100%: as Real Scene, but with a white test rectangle 2, 10, 25, 50, 100% of the window size, measured for a short time. The purpose is to test the variance in luminance over the full range of bright scenes, because many (9 out of 10) UHD TVs adapt the maximum luminance according to the size of the scene in order to keep the TV (including electronics and power supply) from being damaged. Tested with local dimming and HDR signal.

·HDR sustained window 2/10/25/50/100%: as HDR Peak Window, but after the luminance value has stabilised.

·ABL: Automatic Brightness Limiting is a feature that dims the maximum luminance of the TV when a large portion of the TV is displaying a bright colour. This is done to help prevent components used in the TV from being damaged when the TV makes the screen really bright across a wide amount of space. ABL is expressed as the standard deviation of the HDR sustained brightness, after linearizing for noticeable differences in luminosity. Good value: <0.07. Noticeable difference: 0.01. Relevant especially for games.

It may seem at first that LED TVs are incredibly far ahead. But the ‘white window’ numbers are far from being represented in a real viewing environment (as seen in the ‘real scene’ results). Even if OLEDs cannot reach the same peaks of brightness with testing slides, those synthetic measurements are a lot closer to reality. Both LED TVs can only get half or even a third as bright as their theoretical peak when watching a typical movie! The QLED TV is especially weak in this case since it can't even reach theoretical peaks higher than OLED. There is one important part that LED does undeniably do better. While OLED can get small highlights brighter than LEDs in real content, it also dims a lot more when watching a scene that is very bright throughout. For this reason, the LED TV edges it out since it can remain quite bright even while showing an entirely bright screen.

The following table shows the peak luminance results for 35 models and 107 screen sizes of 2017 UHD HDR televisions. The first 18 models (48 sizes), roughly half of the test population, showed large differences depending on the test pattern. For the other half of the population the values are within a small bandwidth.

The rting.com testers also did a similar test for 20 models of monitors, but there only one model showed (short-time) large luminance variations depending on test pattern.
[24](#footnote25)
 

Overall it is difficult to draw a general conclusion, but especially the models in the top rows the peak luminance at 2-10% white windows are around 20-30% higher than what one could expect for the screen as a whole.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49023.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49024.jpg)

A first conclusion is that the content-based luminance variation, enabled through local dimming and/or active matrix in combination with rapid ex-ante image analysis, is a very useful feature for televisions to realise on one hand the UHD peak luminance requirements, even up to the UHD Premium level, and on the other hand keep the power consumption in check.

As such it can be expected to be incorporated in all the UHD models in a few years. This means that these models will be able to claim e.g. 1000 cd/m² HDR peak luminance (2% or 10% window), but still only use as much power as today’s standard television featuring a 350-400 cd/m² peak luminance.

It also means that the currently proposed UHD versus HD limits, with a factor 1.2-1.25 correction, are not necessarily prohibiting the further development of better image quality.

As a final note it should be considered that the findings for peak luminance and picture quality relate to televisions, i.e. displays with a fairly dynamic content, viewed indoors from a distance of 2 to 5 meters. The findings are not necessarily transferable to computer (or similar) displays, i.e. displays with usually a relatively static content and viewed from a distance of 0.5 to 0.7 meters. In those cases the ergonomics (eye fatigue, general physical and mental fatigue) and the image retention or other detrimental technical effects will limit the peak luminance to current values (see table above). For instance, monitor manufacturers like EIZO advice to adjust ‘white window’ luminance to a level of 100-150 cd/m2 in an office with normal brightness of 300-500 lux. 
[25](#footnote26)
 . The same source also mentions an increased flicker-effect at increased brightness setting for PWM-fed
[26](#footnote27)
 monitors.

The luminance variation from a close distance, i.e. the ABL value, is not seen as a positive feature for monitors, especially not for gaming.

Indoor signage displays can be expected to follow the path of the UHD HDR television peak luminance settings for current TV sizes of up to 75-80”. Even though peak luminance rates up to 2500 cd/m2 can be found in advertisements, values of 1000-1400 cd/m2 as found in the brightest UHD HDR televisions should be (more than) enough in signage practice. If anything, because the content is usually more static, the ex-ante image analysis of the display may reveal that certain static parts of the image should have less luminance to prevent image retention.

For outdoor signage displays, theatre displays, video walls, etc. the peak luminance requirements may be (much) higher than what can be found in normal televisions, with values of 5000 cd/m². Outdoor display technologies can be quite different from indoor displays. Whereas in televisions the OLED is the only active matrix currently available, in very large (outdoor) displays the active matrix is already now built from (inorganic) LEDs at the level of sub-pixels. In the near future the size of these pixels will be further reduced. For instance, at the international CES 2018 trade fair Samsung will present a demonstration of an active-matrix display with what it calls ‘microleds’ at the level of sub-pixels. It hopes to have this technology in the home TV in a few years, which is an important opportunity for energy saving. But to have this technology at mass-production prices also enables the introduction of high luminance (=high contrast) displays in outdoor applications. The challenge, both for industry and society in general, is to take care that the luminance of these future displays, and thereby their energy consumption, will be controlled smartly. This means an optimal ABC (Automatic Brightness Control) depending on the outdoors conditions (sunny, cloudy, day/night) , smart presence sensors (e.g. luminance increase when people get near, where relevant), simple time control (no working displays in closed metro, train stations, shopping malls, etc.).

Note that for signage displays in traffic applications there may be special requirements, e.g. on colour representation or font, that can be safety-related or are just legacy-related for a specific Member State.

3.PAPER-INK, E-INK OR ELECTRONIC PAPER NON-RETROILLUMINATED TECHNOLOGY.

A new generation of non-backlit signage displays may come to market: "paper-ink" or "electronic paper" big displays prototypes have been presented requiring a minimal amount of energy, just for updating the image displayed. Examples are SOOFA (
<http://www.soofa.co/soofa-sign/>
), Visionect (
<https://www.visionect.com/blog/42-inch-epaper-display/>
), CDS (
<http://crystal-display.com/cds-offering-development-kits-for-epaper/>
) or E Ink Corporation (
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxT6WvZvIEM>
). The energy required is so little that these displays can be completely wireless, e.g. powered by a battery and energy-harvested by a small photovoltaic panel.

  

4.AUTO BRIGHTNESS CONTROL (ABC)

ABC is an energy saving feature of a TV that uses a built-in light sensor to detect ambient light levels in the room and adjusts screen brightness for viewer comfort. Reduced light levels means reduced screen brightness and, consequently, energy savings.

The following chart provides an overview of the likely influence on energy use by activation of ABC control in some television (US market)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49025.jpg)

Figure 14.5: Comparison of 4K on-mode power use with ABC ON and OFF (Source: NRDC, 
<https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/uhd-tv-energy-use-report.pdf>
 )

Figure 14.6, from a US DoE study, illustrates how a logarithmic response curve can get the idealised relationship between illuminance and luminance for the of human eye.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49026.jpg)

Figure 14.6: US DOE study, 2012 looking at the room illuminance levels and screen luminance. Found a logarithmic response curve of human eye – doubling of brightness perceived the same - 10 : 20 :: 100 : 200 (lux)

ABC implementation in displays, however, can deeply differ from the idealistic curve (Figure 14.7). An appripiate testing methos, consequently, is deemed as necessary.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49027.jpg)

 

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49028.jpg)

Figure 14.7: comparison of two displays with ABC to the ideal curve: is saves some energy, but is brighter (left) or does little to save, using a step function (right).

  

5.HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR)

The graphs below present the second-by-second power consumption of 7 different models of television displays on the market in 2017, all HDR-enabled.

The measures are taken while playing 4 different 10 minutes video loops. IEC EN 62087 is the original video test loop, in HD resolution, part of the standard currently used to measure the energy use as to be indicated on the current energy label.

STEP HD is an alternative video test loop using a different pattern and aiming at avoiding possible "defeat device" techniques and non realistic energy consumption declarations. STEP UHD and STEP UHD-HDR are the same alternative videos respectively in UHD resolution and, with HDR metadata in addition. It is surprising as different algorithm implementations can lead to so different energy use paths, with some implementations showing virtually no higher energy use and others over doubling it.

See also CLASP, ECOS, EEB, TopTen, (2015), and NRDC (2015).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49029.jpg)

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| IEC 62087 62 Watts;  STEP HD 68 Watts;  STEP UHD 64 Watts; and  STEP UHD-HDR 64 Watts. |  |
| IEC 62087 132 Watts;  STEP HD 134 Watts;  STEP UHD 134 Watts; and  STEP UHD-HDR 141 Watts. |  |
| IEC 62087 130 Watts;  STEP HD 191 Watts;  STEP UHD 165 Watts; and  STEP UHD-HDR 172 Watts. |  |
| IEC 62087 199 Watts;  STEP HD 206 Watts;  STEP UHD 209 Watts; and  STEP UHD-HDR 456 Watts. |  |
| IEC 62087 128 Watts;  STEP HD 129 Watts;  STEP UHD 127 Watts; and  STEP UHD-HDR 129 Watts |  |
|  |  |

Figure 14.8: Comparison of second-by-second power consumption of 7 different models of television displays on the market in 2017, all HDR-enabled (Source: Personal communication with CLASP Europe, April 2018: anonymised STEP project UHD-HDR television test results).

  

6.TECHNOLOGY OUTLOOK 2030

As regards the background on the improvements in the last 5 years, Won Young Park et al.(2013) give a very comprehensive overview of worldwide technologies, their costs and energy savings
[27](#footnote28)
.

At least since the Consultation Forum in December 2014, manufacturers claimed energy allowances for HDR (High Dynamic Range) and for UHD. During the first year since being launched on the market, those models were undoubtedly using 50% more energy than SDR (Standard Dynamic Range) models and HD models. In the latest models, however, the high contrast range of HDR is implemented through "smart local dimming". , which may achieve 1400 cd/m2 luminance for a white surface that is 10-20% of the total, but will tune back to the ordinary 350 cd/m2 when the whole screen is white. In the Annex 14 a more comprehensive overview is given.

Another concern is how and if the OLED displays will hold up with much more stringent efficiency requirements. It is believed that there is still some room for improvement with this most recent display technology and thus that it might need more time.

To verify the current status of monitor energy use
[28](#footnote29)
, the EC commissioned in 2017a study on 30 models. A discussion from that study can be found in the Annex 13.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49035.jpg)
In the next few years, a large improvement-step can be expected from ‘microLEDs’. This is a LED-based technology which no longer works with a LED-backlight and masks/filters, but where each pixel is made of LED-subpixels. This self-emitting new technology can be compared to OLED: companies developing MicroLED promise features such as very high contrast, very deep blacks, fast response time, high brightness levels and low energy consumption. It can be expected that, at current luminance, the energy efficiency will increase by at least a factor 2.5 to 3. The picture quality in terms of contrast ratio and colour gamut, can be at least as good as with OLED. Already in 2012 Sony unveiled its industry first 55”Crystal LED TV prototype, followed by a commercial HD display module in 2016. In 2018 Samsung presented a 146” commercial UHD display called ‘The Wall’. High-end consumer are expected from 2020, with more affordable versions to follow from 2021-2022.

With this technology it should be possible to go below the 0.3 W/dm², or about 15W on-mode power for a 43”(50 dm²) TV and 22 kWh/year. Below 50”, a HD resolution might be more than sufficient for a great display that is also more environmentally friendly. Chances for microLEDs are looking good, but in the scenario calculation a slightly more conservative efficiency line for 2020-2030 will be followed considering that in the past new technologies such as Field Emission Display (FED) and Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED) were promised a great future but developments stopped in 2009.

The Cinema in the Sihlcity shopping centre in Zurich is probably the first in Europe where laser projectors are replaced by a videowall of microLED signage display modules. The manufacturer claims up to 10 times the peak brightness of projectors, in a darker room, with impressive resolution level. Samsung acquired Yesco, a Utah-based company leading in the feld of microLED technology and is going to place on the market a " modular display", composed of elements of 37 inches each, with a resolution of 960x540 pixels, permitting to compose in a seamless surface of pixels, indoor or outdoor display screens of virtually any size.

7.FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

The test procedures for energy efficiency of televisions stem from the 2008 state-of-the-art in resolution that was "Full HD" (1920x1080 pixels). The introduction of Ultra High Definition (UHD, 3840x2160 pixels) as well as the contrast ratio and colour gamut pertaining to ‘High Dynamic Range’(HDR) make it necessary to develop a new video test loop that can deliver an appropriate input-signal to test electronic displays and provide results closer to "real life".

The technology progress also influences the metrics of the limit-curves. In electronic displays the overall energy use is influenced mainly by two components:

·The display panel, with the associated backlighting (unless self emitting technologies such as OLED or Quantum Dots are used); the energy use is proportional to the display area and is influenced by the resolution level, luminosity level, etc

·The electronics to decode images and drive the pixels in the panel: the energy use is virtually independent from the size of the display panel and marginally influenced by the resolution level.

The current limit for on-mode power of televisions is linear, as in relatively small displays, the influence of the panel in respect to the electronics is comparable. However the market trends towards bigger and bigger panels make the linear curve not appropriate anymore and a curve is desirable. A hyperbolic tangent (tanh) has long been used in other labelling schemes such as Energy Star and is considered a more appropriate curve, especially for the largest displays on the market.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49037.jpg)

Figure 14.10: Maximum on-mode power limits in force compared in well-known international regulations (SEAD webinar 21 April 2015)

-Proposed On-Mode power demand limits for electronic displays are now expressed in the form of a formula where both the display area and the measured power are parameters. The formula uses a "tanh" curve that, contrary to the linear curve used in the Regulation currently in force, matches the non-linear relation between display area and power used that resulted from the analysis of the data on displays on the market
[29](#footnote30)
. Figure 6.17 shows the power consumption levels of electronic display models from the model database used for the impact assessment, compared with the requirements currently in force (Tier 2, brown line): the graph clearly shows how the efficiency levels for the biggest displays are far below the current requirements.

-The proposed formula is based on a similar ENERGYSTAR function but has been adapted to be used for all displays in the scope. To simplify compliance control, it does not consider the presence of a tuner, panel display technology or parameters other than the display area.

-

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49038.jpg)

Figure 14.11: Comparison between the 2014 data on display models data and requirements included in Tier1 and Tier 2 of the current ED regulation 642/2009 and a possible "tanh" curve.

The same function can be used in the Energy Labelling regulation, setting specific energy efficiency values (EEI) for different efficiency classes.

Annex 15:
   Background: Circular economy and other non-energy impacts. 

1.END-OF-LIFE, WEEE MASS FLOWS

Electronic displays are subject to WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU for products in Annex I, categories 3 (Consumer Electronics, including TVs) and 4 (ITT equipment, including monitors). For that reason Eurostat compiles statistics on the relevant mass flows. The most recent data are in the table below.

Table 15. 1. WEEE Eurostat env\_wasleee, extract Feb. 2018 (VHK)

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Consumer Electronics CE  (75 wt% TV), in kt | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Products put on market | 1020 | 1191 | 954 | 955 | 841 | 723 | 634 | 738 | : |
| Waste collected | 347 | 450 | 536 | 601 | 645 | 624 | : | 613 | : |
| - waste collected from hh | 340 | 441 | 541 | 618 | 653 | 626 | 596 | 583 | : |
| - waste collected from others | 8 | 10 | 13 | 9 | 12 | 13 | : | 30 | : |
| - treated in MS | 417 | 507 | 585 | 629 | 651 | 639 | : | 568 | : |
| - treated in another MS | 15 | 14 | 21 | 24 | 37 | 32 | : | 36 | : |
| - treated outside EU | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | : | 2 | : |
| Reuse | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | : | 5 | : |
| Recycling | 269 | 345 | 426 | 485 | 525 | 512 | : | 494 | : |
| Other recovery | 37 | 41 | 51 | 51 | 47 | 41 | : | 48 | : |
| Total Recovery | 308 | 390 | 481 | 541 | 579 | 557 | : | 542 | : |
| Collected vs. Put on market | 34% | 38% | 56% | 63% | 77% | 86% | : | 83% | : |
| Recycled vs. Collected | 78% | 77% | 80% | 81% | 81% | 82% | : | 81% | : |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| IT and telecom equipm. ITT  (6 wt% monitor), in kt | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Products put on market | 1514 | 1573 | 1494 | 1478 | 1416 | 1274 | 1225 | 1250 | 1190 |
| Waste collected | 389 | 569 | 628 | 695 | 677 | 648 | : | 618 | 640 |
| - waste collected from hh | 316 | 507 | 564 | 640 | 611 | 582 | : | 519 | 502 |
| - waste collected from others | 85 | 81 | 78 | 69 | 81 | 76 | : | 99 | 138 |
| - treated in MS | 85 | 81 | 78 | 69 | 81 | 76 | : | 553 | 577 |
| - treated in another MS | 25 | 30 | 26 | 27 | 31 | 25 | : | 33 | 36 |
| - treated outside EU | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | : | 8 | 4 |
| Reuse | 12 | 19 | 32 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 14 | 13 | 13 |
| Recycling | 275 | 407 | 451 | 498 | 463 | 450 | : | 490 | 504 |
| Other recovery | 29 | 36 | 40 | 43 | 34 | 39 | : | 42 | 38 |
| Total Recovery | 308 | 390 | 481 | 541 | 579 | 557 | : | 545 | 555 |
| Collected vs. Put on market | 26% | 36% | 42% | 47% | 48% | 51% | : | 49% | 54% |
| Recycled vs. Collected | 71% | 72% | 72% | 72% | 68% | 69% | : | 79% | 79% |

 

Assuming, as explained in the main report, in 2014 TV sales were 40 m units at a weight of 12 kg/unit, which amounts to 540 kt (540 million kg). The WEEE statistics for 2014 mention 738 kt of products put on the market in the category of consumer electronics. If this is correct, then the TVs are almost 75% of the total. Likewise, in 2014 10 million computer monitors were sold e.g. with a weight of 7 kg/unit. The resulting 70 kt is 6% of the total ITT product weight put on the market, according to the WEEE statistics.

If we use these multipliers throughout the WEEE statistics, it means that in 2014 there were 610 kt of electronic displays placed on the market. Almost 500 kt (460 kt TV + 37 kt monitor) of display-waste was collected, presumably from displays put on the market 7 to 10 years before. Of this 400 kt (370 kt TV and almost 30 kt monitors) was recycled (80%), for 39 kt there was probably energy recovery from incineration and 4 kt was re-used. So in total 443 kt (89%) was recovered in some useful way and thus the remaining 57 kt was officially discarded, i.e. either incinerated without heat recovery or thrown away as landfill.

Figure 15.1 below gives the estimated TV weight (in kg) and the viewable surface area (in dm2) over the 1990-2030 period. It is estimated by VHK on the basis of several Bills-of-Materials published over the past period and extrapolation of the latest trends into the future.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49039.jpg)

Figure 15.2: Mass flows related to TV sales and End-of-Life 1990-2015 (real) and 2016-2030 (projections)

Figure 15.2 illustrates how the ‘light-weighting’ of TVs has its impact over time.

Until 15 August 2018 the minimum WEEE targets are a recovery rate of 80% and 70% to be prepared for re-use and recycled. After that date 85% should be recovered and 80% shall be prepared for re-use and recycled. In other words, the non-recovered fraction is a concern.

According to the plastics recyclers, the halogenated flame retardants are the main cause that a part of the plastics cannot be recovered in any useful way, i.e. not even for heat recovery.

2.HALOGENATED FLAME RETARDANTS

Following the EcoReport calculations that VHK made for the Commission in 2012, corrected for more recent sales, appropriate measures in the field of flame retardants could deliver at the most an extra 36 kt bulk-plastics and 40 kt technical plastics from recycling. The EU27 plastics demand in recent years was around 45-50 Mt, so this 76 kt amounts to 0.17%. Note that for individual technical plastics, like ABS (750 kt EU demand, source PlasticsEurope), the ca. 30 kt extra recovered from displays represents about 4%, which is significant.

Legal background

The use of brominated halogenated flame retardants (BFRs) in plastics is regulated through REACH
[30](#footnote31)
, RoHS
[31](#footnote32)
, WEEE
[32](#footnote33)
 and the WFD
[33](#footnote34)
 legislation. REACH regulates Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and Decabromodiphenyl Ether (Deca-BDE).

·Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), a flame retardant used in Printed Circuit Boards and ABS plastics and as such used in a compound with no restrictions in use.

·Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a flame retardant used in thermal insulation with a ‘sunset date’ of 21.8.2015,

·Decabromodiphenyl Ether (Deca-BDE), a flame retardant used in enclosures of Electric and Electronic appliances and in that application restricted in Europe since July 2008.

In the RoHS directive, Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBB), Octa-BDE and Penta-BDE are banned and the use of Deca-BDE is restricted
[34](#footnote35)
. The ban relates to concentrations above 0.1% in homogenuous materials (0.01% for Cd), but there are exemptions.

Under the Water Framework Directive Octa-BDE & Deca-BDE are listed among the substances to be monitored, while Penta-BDE is the only BFR listed as a hazardous substance.

Following the WEEE Directive, plastic containing brominated flame retardants has to be removed from any separately collected waste of electric and electronic equipment.

BRFs are regulated under the mentioned frameworks, because they are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (‘PBT’) and some are classified as very persistent and very bioacccumulative (‘vP/vB’).

Why halogenated flame retardants and which types?

BFR and other HFR are used in plastics because they are a low-cost solution to obtain high flame retardancy of UL94 class V1 or higher.

The necessity to use BFR or another halogenated FR is expected to diminish once the so-called ‘external ignition requirement’ is stricken from EU safety regulations. This so-called ‘candle test’ entails an open flame being applied to the back cover of the television over a prolonged period of time without the back cover actually catching fire. It is prescribed in EN 60065:2002/A11:2008, a harmonised standard for the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) compliance. This standard has been superseded by EN 60065: 2014, which will in turn be superseded 20.9.2019 by harmonised standard EN 62386-1:2014 that no longer requires this ‘candle test’.
[35](#footnote36)
 

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49040.jpg)

Green NGOs like ECOS have been fighting the candle test for several years, as it is claimed to be disproportionate, based on fire statistics that are outdated (UK 2001) and relate to a TV technology (CRT TVs) now disappeared from the market.

BFRs are used, apart from TBBPA in printed circuit boards, in the plastic back-cover of televisions. Another group of so-called phosphate flame retardants (PFR), a non-halogenated flame retardant, is used more often in combination with PC/ABS back-covers.

VHK investigated more recent UK fire statistics that seem to confirm the statement from the Green NGOs (figure 15.3).

Possibilities for recovery

The European Flame Retardant Association (EFRA) analysed the waste stream of 610 LCD TVs and found 17% of plastic back covers containing HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene) with 2 types of Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and 26% containing PC/ABS with PFRs (phosphate FRs). Aged plastics with PFRs/BFRs showed good recyclability and could be successfully reapplied in new back covers
[36](#footnote37)
. High precision sorting is challenging but trials on separation of plastics with BFRs using e.g. DE-XRT (Dual Energy X-Ray Transmission) and identification/sorting of a black plastics with sliding spark (SSSP
[37](#footnote38)
) and FTIR
[38](#footnote39)
 hand scanner were satisfactory. As regards miscibility EFRA found that PMMA and ABS in PC/ABS is lowering the physical properties and 2% wt. of contamination of other plastics can already have a substantial negative effect on the physical properties of plastic recyclates.
  
EFRA estimates that only 12% of the plastics in a display are recycled.

The figure 15.4 shows that plastics make up some 40% of the product weight and that 25% of the product weight goes into the enclosure. The back-cover is said to account for 1.6 kg.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49041.jpg)

Figure 15.4: Materials balance of flat panel displays, compared to WEEE targets (source: EFRA)

Note that since June 2017, EFRA is no longer a member of the chemical industry council Cefic. A new association called PINFA, representing industries of non-halogenated flame retardants, is now the only CEFIC association dealing with flame retardants
[39](#footnote40)
.

Effects on health

Halogenated flame retardants, also known as organo-halogen flame retardants contain chlorine or bromine bonded to carbon. Halogenated compounds with aromatic rings can degrade into dioxin derivatives, particularly when heated, such as during production, a fire, recycling, or exposure to sun. In addition, when some of the halogenated flame retardants such as pentabromodiphenylether derivatives are metabolized, they form hydroxylated metabolites, even more toxic than the parent compound. These metabolites, for example, may compete strongly to bind with transthyretin or other components of the thyroid system, can be potent oestrogen mimics and can affect neurotransmitter receptor activity. Halogenated flame retardants have been shown to cause cancer, immune and endocrine disruption, and adverse reproductive and neurodevelopmental effects in animals (Birnbaum et al. 2003). In humans, these substances are associated with reproductive abnormalities (Meeker & Stapleton 2009), diabetes (Lim et al. 2008), thyroid dysregulation (Turyk et al. 2008, Meeker et al. 2009), cognitive changes (Roze et al.2009, Herbstman et al. 2010), and undescended testicles in new-born boys (Main et al. 2007).

When products with flame retardants reach the end of their useful life, they are typically recycled, incinerated, or landfilled. Recycling can contaminate workers and communities near recycling plants, as well as new materials, with halogenated flame retardants and their breakdown products. Electronic waste is often melted to recycle metal components, and such heating can generate toxic dioxins and furans. Poor-quality incineration similarly generates and releases high quantities of toxic degradation products (Speight, 2017).

ECOS, one of the environmental NGOs that has been fighting the use of HFRs for many years, reports that studies have found associations between exposure to certain flame retardants and adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, reduced IQ, birth defects, and hormonal changes. Infants and young children are the most vulnerable group, as they are acutely susceptible to neurodevelopmental toxicants and endocrine disruptors.
[40](#footnote41)

Brominated flame retardants also change the physical properties of plastics, resulting in inferior performance in recycled products.

Are there substitutes?

The composition of LCD display back covers is shown in Fig. 15.5. Only the non-FR plastics HIPS and ABS are mechanically recycled from waste streams on an industrial scale (Peeters, 2011). Other FR plastics, such as PC, PC/ABS with P FR, HIPS/PPE with PFR and ABS/PMMA are currently mostly thermally recycled, a relatively expensive process. Many manufacturers have already started using alternative flame retardants, such as metal hydroxides and phosphorus. Separating FR plastics treatment requires several technical challenges, while high waste volumes are required for this treatment to become economically viable due to the high investment costs. However research demonstrated that for example, substitutes based e.g. on PFR PC/ABS plastic recycling is technically feasible with existing technologies and is economically viable in Europe. Moreover, it can be started up at a lower throughput, which requires limited investments (Peeters 2014).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49042.jpg)

Figure 15.5: Plastic types found LCD displays in 2015 (source Wagner 2017)

3.CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS

The printed circuit boards (PCBs) of electronic displays contain precious, rare and critical raw materials. For this reason it is standard practice to dismount the PCBs from the rest of the display and feed it into a different route. This route can be a dedicated shredder followed by chemical-physical processes to separate the valuable fractions. On some occasions, the electronics on the PCBs can also be further disassembled and sorted for optimised recovery.

In any case, it is important that the PCBs are treated differently and do not go in the same shredder as the rest of the displays. According to JRC-IES, this will increase the recovery rate of silver (Ag) from the current 16% to 32%, gold (Au) from 14% to 29%, platinum (Pt) and Palladium (Pd) from 15% to 30%.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 15.6: Extra recovery of critical raw materials in el.displays due separate treatment | | | | | | | |
| Metal | Content per LCD display[1] | Content in 77 mn units sold in EU in 2012 | Recovered today [2] | | Recovery after proposed measures [2] | | Extra material recovered per year (at 77 m units) |
|  |  |  |  | |  | |  |
|  | mg | kg | % | kg | % | kg | kg |
| Silver | 580 | 44 660 | 16% | 7 146 | 32% | 14291 | 7 146 |
| Gold | 140 | 10 780 | 14% | 1 509 | 29% | 3126 | 1 617 |
| Palladium | 44 | 3 388 | 15% | 508 | 30% | 1016 | 508 |
| [1] Buchert, M. et al., Recycling critical raw materials from waste electronic equipment, Öko-Institut, 2012. | | | | | | | |
| [2] Source: JRC-IES for DG ENV. | | | | | | | |

For comparison:

In 2011 global silver fabrication demand was around 15000 t, of which around half came from the electronics industry. Europe represents around 17.7% of global silver fabrication demand, i.e. around 2700 t, hence, the 7 t extra recovery from displays represents 0.25% of Europe’s total and 0.5% of Europe’s silver demand by the electronics industry (source: www.SilverInstitute.org, 2012).

Over the period 2008-2012 the global gold demand was reportedly 4147 t, of which 10.8% came from the electronics industry (439 t). Assuming that Europe represents around 18-20% of global gold demand, this comes down to around 750 t in total and 80 t in the electronics industry, respectively. Hence, the 1.6 t extra recovery from displays represents 0.2% of Europe’s total demand and 2% of Europe’s gold demand by the electronics industry (source: www.gold.org, 2012). Likewise, the 2012 global mine production of Palladium was 200 t (source USGS, 2013). If Europe accounts for 18% of global demand (36 t) then the extra 0.5 t amounts to 1.4%.

LCD screen

Indium (In) is the main critical raw material in the screen. It is used, in the form of Indium-Tin-Oxide (ITO) for its transparency and electric conductivity. Indium is used also in other applications like solar panels, etc., but 60-75% (depending on the source) ends up in flat panel displays.

Indium is not particularly rare or (eco)toxic nor is there an import reliance (see figure below), but it is on the EU Critical Raw Materials
[41](#footnote42)
 list because it is considered difficult to substitute –especially in flat panel displays. The End-of-Life recycling input rate is 0% for flat panel displays, mainly because the quantities of ITO per flat panel display are low
[42](#footnote43)
. Layer thickness is around 200 nm and thus a typical TV yields between 1 and 1.5 g ITO. This makes the costs of recycling prohibitive. Several researchers are looking to increase the concentration of ITO in the waste product, e.g. by chemical leaching (using HCl) or bioleaching (using bacteria) of the ground glass cullets/ITO mix. This is promising but has not (yet) led to commercial implementation. More details on indium processing can be found in literature
[43](#footnote44)
.

Disassembly of the glass panel from a TV is not critical, it is typically clamped between bevel and back-cover. Once the backcover is removed (6-8 screws typically and additional form-locks), the glass panel with filters etc. can be removed. There is no welding, soldering or gluing.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49043.jpg)

Figure 15.6: Indium material flows EU-28 (source: MSA-group in EC 201889)

4.DISASSEMBLY/DISMANTLING

The following example is to illustrate the recycling of a modern flat panel display.

Disassembly of an LED LCD TV is relatively straightforward: The back cover is attached either by 6-8 screws (for TVs) and/or through a click/clamp joint with the front-cover (typical for monitors). Inside there are 2-3 printed circuit boards, for power supply (if there is no external power supply as with most monitors and some TVs), signal processing and timing control. The inverter board, necessary for CCFL backlights, will be no longer part of future electronic displays. This also means that there will be no high-voltage part inside the display.

The PCBs for power supply, signal processing and timing control are screwed to the metal chassis of the LCD module, sometimes with a separate metal cover. In most PC monitors and in some TVs the power supply, a part with high copper (transformer) and palladium (capacitors) content, is external. This means it is easy to repair/replace and to recycle.

After removing the front bevel (click/clamp), the TFT LCD panel and all the optics (filters and possibly PMMA sheet) can be dismounted.

The LCD-module is usually a simple stack (no screws, no glue) of direct or side backlight, optical films & diffusers (e.g. 5-7 mm PMMA-sheet) and finally the LC glass-sheets with a flatcable to driver-ICs. The stack is encased in a metal sheet chassis, designed for mechanical rigidity/strength, heat dissipation and connection to PCBs, cabinet covers and stand.

Most ‘tear-down’ video demonstrations show that a disassembly time of 4 minutes is realistic, i.e. the time it takes to unscrew 15-20 screws, wiggle a knife between front- and backbezel, cut some cables and sort the pieces. JRC-IES (2013) found that for the current waste stream of televisions and monitors, i.e. including CCFLs, half of the smaller models (<25”) were dismantled in 260 seconds and half of the larger models (>25”) were dismantled in 480 seconds in EU recycling facilities.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49044.jpg)

Figure 15.7: Exploded view of LCD TV with main components (example)

Outside the above disassembly technique, it is believed that the miscibility of plastics does not create any particular problems in recovery of materials. The figure 15.8 below gives the miscibility of plastics in recycling.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49045.jpg)

Figure 15.8: Miscibility of plastics in recycling (source EFRA 2014)

According to the WEEE Directive, plastic parts with brominated flame retardants need to be removed separately (as do TFT panels and PCBs). Also for other halogenated flame retardants (Chlorinated, fluorinated) this is good practice.

5.PRODUCTION PHASE: NF3 EMISSIONS

The emission of the high-GWP NF3 in display-panel production is mentioned here to be complete, not because it is an issue that the EU can easily address as the emission does not take place on EU soil.

Historically, the manufacturing process of LCD panels had a specific negative environmental impact ('GWP') because of the used cleaning agents, such as SF6 and perfluoroethane. Over the last few years most manufacturers, however, have replaced traditional cleaning agents by NF3, which was considered to have lower environmental impact. NF3 has a high GWP-100 of 17 200 CO2 eq. but its effect on the Earth’s atmosphere was assumed small.

As NF3 became a popular cleaning agent
[44](#footnote45)
 and because approximately 2% of its input is released into the atmosphere during production, the NF3 concentration in the atmosphere has grown rapidly and it has recently been included in the upcoming UNFCCC 2nd Kyoto protocol.
[45](#footnote46)
 

In 2010, the total global production of NF3 amounted to 8000 t, of which at least around 6000 t was used as a cleaning agent in display panel manufacturing
[46](#footnote47)
. If this was exclusively used in the worldwide production of the large TFT panels remaining in the scope of the measures, the cleaning operation of the average panel would require 24 g
[47](#footnote48)
 of NF3 and, 2% of that, i.e. 0.48 g would be released into the atmosphere. The GWP impact of 0.48 g of NF3 amounts to 8.8 kg CO2 equivalent. According to the EcoReport analysis, the GWP impact of other production operations and materials amounts to 274 kg CO2 equivalent. The total NF3 emissions caused by the 77 million electronic displays bought annually to the EU27 amount to approximately 0.7 Mt.

Annex 16:
   Acronyms & conversion table

3D
   
   Three dimensional

4K
   
   4000 pixels in horizontal dimension (a high resolution digital video format)

A
   
   Screen surface

ABC
   
   Automatic Brightness Control

AIO
   
   All in one

AMOLED
   Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode

AP
   
   Acidification Potential

APD
   
   Auto Power Down

APL
   
   Average Picture Level

AT
   
   Austria

BAT
   
   Best available technology

BE
   
   Belgium

BEF
   
   Brightness Enhancement Film

BLU
   
   Backlight unit

Bln or bn
   Billion (1 bn= 109)

BNAT
   
   Best Not yet Available Technology

CCFL
   
   Cold-cathode fluorescent lamp

cd
   
   Candela

CENELEC
   European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CF
   
   Consultation Forum established under Ecodesign Directive, Art. 18

CH
   
   Czech Republic

CN
   
   China

CRT
   
   Cathode-ray tube

CSTB
   
   Complex Set-top Boxes

DBEF
   
   Dual brightness enhancement film

DDI
   
   Display driver integrated

DDIC
   
   Display Driver Integrated Circuit

DE
   
   Germany

DK
   
   Denmark

DOE
   
   US Department of Energy

DPF
   
   Digital photo frames

DVI
   
   Digital Visual Interface

e-beam
   
   Electron-beam

EC
   
   European Commission

ECOS
   
   European Environmental Citizens Organisation

EEA
   
   European Economic Area, European Environmental Agency

EED
   
   Energy Efficiency Directive

EEI
   
   Energy Efficiency Index

EMI
   
   Electro-magnetic interference

EN
   
   European Norm

ENTR
   
   Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry (European Commission)

EPA
   
   Environmental Protection Agency

EPBD
   
   Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

EP
   
   Eutrophication Potential, European Parliament

ErP
   
   Energy related Product

ES
   
   Spain

ETS
   
   Emissions Trading Scheme

EU
   
   European Union

EUV
   
   Extreme ultra-violet

FPD
   
   Flat panel display

FR
   
   France

GPP
   
   Green Public Procurement

GWP
   
   Global Warming Potential

HD
   
   High definition

HDMI
   
   High-Definition Multimedia Interface

HDR
   
   High Dynamic Range

HU
   
   Hungary

IA
   
   Impact assessment

IEC
   
   International Electrotechnical Commission

IEEE
   
   Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IGZO
   
   Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide

Inch
   
   unit of length, 1 inch= 1” = 2.54 cm

IT
   
   Information technology

ITO
   
   Indium tin oxide

JRC
   
   European Commission Joint Research Centre

JRC-IES
   JRC -Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Ispra, Italy)

JRC-IPTS
   JRC- Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (Sevilla, Spain)

kWh
   
   kilowatt-hour

LCD
   
   Liquid Cristal Display

LED
   
   Light-emitting diode

LGP
   
   Light Guide Plate

lm
   
   Lumen

MEErP
   
   Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-related Products

MEEuP
   
   Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-using Products

MEPS
   
   Minimum Energy Performance Standards

MF
   
   Multi-functional

MOCVD
   Metal Organic Chemical Vapour Deposition

Mp
   
   Megapixels

msp
   
   Manufacturer selling price

NGO
   
   Non-governmental organisation

NL
   
   the Netherlands

NMS
   
   New Member States

OEM
   
   Original equipment manufacturer

OJ
   
   Official Journal of the European Union

OLED
   
   Organic light emitting diode

P
   
   Electric power consumption

PAH
   
   Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PC
   
   Personal computer

   
   Polycarbonate

PCB
   
   Printed Circuit Board

PDP
   
   Plasma Display Panel

PECVD
   Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapour Deposition

PET
   
   PolyEthylene erephthalate

PM
   
   Particulate Matter (with addition of size PM5, PM10, etc.)

PMMA
   
   Polymethyl methacrylate

PO
   
   Power On-mode

POP
   
   Persistent organic pollutants

R&D
   
   Research & development

SME
   
   Small or Medium Enterprise

TEC
   
   Treaty on the European Communities

TFEU
   
   Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TFT
   
   Thin film transistor

TV
   
   Television

USB
   
   Universal Serial Bus

UV
   
   Ultraviolet

VAT
   
   Value added tax

VOC
   
   Volatile Organic Compounds

W
   
   Watt

Units used in this report
   

CO2 eq.
   Carbon dioxide equivalent, unit for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (usually over 100 years)

g
   
   gramme, ISO-unit of mass

h
   
   hour, also used as ‘height’ denominator

m, m², m³
   meter, square meter, cubic meter; SI-units of length, surface, volume

W
   
   Watt, unit of power

Wh, kWh
   Watt hour, unit of energy (1kWh = 1 000Wh = 3.6 MJ)

cd
   
   Candela; SI base unit of luminous intensity

inch
   
   Unit of length in a number of systems of measurement (1 inch = 2.54 cm)

Mp
   
   Megapixels; physical point in a raster image (1Mp = 1 mln pixels)

Chemical names used in this report

a-Si
   
   amorphous Silicium

Ag
   
   Silver

Au
   
   Aurum (gold)

CO2
   
   Carbon dioxide

In
   
   Indium

Li-Ion
   
   Lithium ions

NF3
   
   Nitrogen tri-fluoride

SF6
   
   Sulphur hexa-fluoride

Pd
   
   Palladium

Pt
   
   Platinum

Si
   
   Silicium

SiH4
   
   Silane

SiN
   
   Silicon nitrides

Display panel conversion diagonal in inch to surface area in square dm (only for size ratio 16:9)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282019%29354.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282019_29354_ENG_xhtml_49046.jpg)

Note: 1 inch= 0.254 dm; 1 square dm = 15.5 square inch.

  

Annex 17:
   References

Adel Bastawros, Jian Zhou, Michael J. Davis, ZheChen, and Wibowo Harsono, Diffuser Films and Optical Performance in LCDs, Information Display Materials issue Vol.28 no.1, January 2012

AEA Group, EuP Group Analysis (I), Lot 3: Sound and Imaging Equipment Restricted Task 1 - 3 Final Report (DPFs), January 2010

Agam Shah, Acer Cuts Staff in Europe, Takes $150 Million Charge, June 1, 2011

AIXTRON SE, IR Master Presentation – Q3/2012, 2012

AIXTRON SE, Small details - infinite options, 2011

Alex Wolfgram, Archos unveils multi-touch Android TV, January 4, 2013

Alex Wolfgram, Sharp sees shortage of 5-inch Full HD panels on Aquos Phone sales; to release new IGZO smartphone in 2013, January 3, 2013

Andrew Rassweiler, Low-End Apple iPad mini Carries $188 Bill of Materials, November 16, 2012

Anna Karin Jönbrink (IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation), preparatory study “Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and Computer Monitors, Report for Tender No. TREN/D1/40-2005/LOT3/S07.56313Apple Inc, 27-inch LED Cinema Display, Environmental Report, 2010

Ardente, F., Mathieux, F. Part 1 - Guidance on Reusability / Recyclability / Recoverability; Recycled content; use of priority resources; use of hazardous substances. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Report n. 2 of project “Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies – Second phase”. July 2012 (draft).

Ardente F., Mathieux F., Talens Peiró L., Revision of methods to assess material efficiency of energy related products and potential requirements - Environmental Footprint and Material Efficiency Support for Product Policy, December 2016,Ardente, F., Mathieux, F. Application of the project’s methods to three product groups. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Report n. 2 of project “Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies – Second phase”. November 2012.

Mathieux F., Ardente g. et al, Critical raw materials and the circular economy, Background report, December 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-74283-5

Recchioni M., Ardente F., Mathieux F. , Environmental footprint and material efficiency support for product policy - Feasibility study for a standardized method to measure the time of extraction of certain parts from an electrical and electronic equipment - Study, March 2016, ISBN 978-92-79-33276-0

Ardjuna Seghers, Sony, Toshiba And Hitachi Merge Into Japan Display, April 3, 2012

AUO, Experience Sharing of Carbon Footprint of LCD TV, January 19, 2010

AUO, TFT-LCD process URL: http://auo.com/?sn=189&lang=en-US

Avdeals America, Fabricating Colour TFT LCD Displays URL: http://www.plasma.com/classroom/fabricating\_tft\_lcd.htm

Birnbaum, Linda & F Staskal, Daniele. (2004). Brominated Flame Retardants: Cause for Concern?. Environmental health perspectives. 112. 9-17. 10.1289/ehp.6559.

Blaupunkt AudioVision GmbH & Co. KG, Blaupunkt celebrates move into new plant, Penang (Malaysia) / Hildesheim (Germany), July 2012

Carolyn Mathas, CCFL and LED price gap closes as CCFL costs explode, August 13, 2012

Centerdata, Study assessing consumer understanding of a draft energy label for electronic displays - Final report, 15/09/2017

Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services CSES, Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC), Final Report, March 2012. available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/review/files/ecodesign\_evaluation\_report\_part1\_en.pdf

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (CPT), Company data URL: http://www.cptt.com.tw/index.php?option=com\_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=32

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Corporate Social Responsibility Report, 2011

Clark Tseng, Dan Tracy, LED Fab Investments: Capacity Expansion Cools Slightly, April 3, 2012

CLASP, ECOS, EEB, TopTen, (2015), CLOSING THE ‘REALITY GAP' - ENSURING A FAIR ENERGY LABEL FOR CONSUMERS, available from 
<https://clasp.ngo/publications/closing-the-reality-gap-ensuring-a-fair-energy-label-for-consumers>
, Öko-Institut e.V; Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd (2015).

Study for the review of the list of restricted substances under RoHS 2, Analysis of impacts from a possible restriction of several new substances under RoHS 2 : final version – Study, available at 
<https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/study-for-the-review-of-the-list-of-restricted-substances-under-rohs-2-analysis-of-impacts>
 

COM (2011)21 final. A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy, Brussels, 26.1.2011.

COM(2011)109 final, Energy Efficiency Plan 2011, EC, 8.3.2011.

Commission Decision of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions (notified under document number C (2009) 1830) (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/300/EC). OJ L 80, 28.3.2009, p. 3

Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 191 , 23.07.2009, p. 42

Commission Decision of 26 October 2009 determining the Community position for a decision of the management entities under the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment on the revision of the computer monitor specifications in Annex C, part II, to the Agreement (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/789/EC). OJ L 282, 29.10.2009, p.23

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L314, 30.11.2010, p.64

Commission Decision of 9 June 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for personal computers (notified under document C(2011) 3737) (Text with EEA relevance) (2011/337/EU). OJ L 151, 10.6.2011, p. 5

Cordeiro F. , Verbist I., Robouch P., Linsinger T., de la Calle M.B. (2011), IMEP-26: Determination of brominated flame retardants in plastic Interlaboratory Comparison Report, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, ISBN 978-92-79-20657-3Daewoo Securities Co., Ltd.("Daewoo"), 1Q Review, May 7,2012

Dainippon Screen Group, Annual Report 2011, 2011

David Hsieh (Display Search), LCD Demand, Panels, Substrates All Move From Large to Larger, 2006

David Lussey, Quantum-Tunnelling-Composite Touch-Screen Technology, Information Display Materials issue Vol.28 no.1, January 2012

DG Environment and the Joint Research Centre, "Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies - Second phase", July 17, 2012

Digitimes, China smart device market sees massive growth in 2012, November 28, 2012

Digitimes, Global display market worth US$164 billion by 2017, says Markets and Markets, December 12, 2012

Digitimes, Taiwan panel makers squeezed by in-cell and low-cost touch solutions, September 27, 2012

Digitimes, 2013 TFT LCD industry and market outlook, December 12, 2012

Digitimes, China LED competitiveness from rare earth packaging and end products, December 21, 2012

Digitimes, Connected TV development favorable to China's triple network convergence, January 30, 2012

Digitimes, CSOT's quick rise to become China's top LCD TV panel supplier, November 9, 2012

Digitimes, Global AMOLED panel capacity soaring, June 27, 2012

Digitimes, Korea leads in overall LED competitiveness, October 17, 2012

Digitimes, LCD TV market trends and outsourcing strategies for 2013, January 3, 2013

Digitimes, LED TV penetration rate expected to reach as high as 90% in 2013, December 22, 2012

Digitimes, MOLED panel market forecast 2012-2014, June 4, 2012

Digitimes, OLED lighting efficiacy to reach 100 lm/W by 2015, May 24, 2012

Digitimes, Smart TV can do it all for home networking, November 30, 2012

Digitimes, Tianma successfully produces Full HD and OLED panels during trial production period, December 3, 2012

Digitimes, Trends and forecasts in the OLED lighting market, 2010-2020, May 17, 2012

Digitimes, Trends in China's LED chip and packaging sector, December 18, 2012

Digitimes, Trends in the high- brightness LED lighting market, February 16, 2012

Digitimes, User interface technologies fight for smart TV control, November 2, 2012

Displays Research Technology, LCD industry poised for recovery as forecast tops $85 billion, September 5, 2012

Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast). OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, pp. 10-35. This is a recast of 2005/32/EC on ecodesign requirements for energy-using products

Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (recast). OJ L 153, 10.6.2009, pp. 1-12. This is a recast of Framework Directive 92/75/EC on energy labeling of household appliances (OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, p. 16-19)

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 25.10.2003, L 275, p.32-46) with amendments.

Directive 2010/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD recast), OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 13-35.

Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (EED), OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1-56.

Dylan McGrath, Analyst: ASML holds all the cards in litho, January 4,2012

EE Herald, South Korea dominates while Chinese suppliers glow inlarge-sized LCD panel market in Q1, reports IHS, June 7, 2012

EFRA , Recycling of Plastics from LCD Television Sets Pilot project on mechanical plastics recycling from post-consumer flat panel display-LCDs. European Flame Retardants Association, (2014). shttp://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user\_upload/RoHS\_Substance\_Review/Substance\_Profiles/20140404\_\_Antimony\_EFRA\_2013.pdf

EMPA, Swiss Federal laboratories for materials science and technology, Swico Recycling, Disposal of Flat Panel Display Monitors in Switzerland Final Report, March 2011

EN IEC 62087:2012, Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video and related equipment, April 2012 (ed. 3), (IEC 62087:2011)

EU Energy Star database, Monitor section, extract Dec. 2014. 
[www.eu-energystar.org](http://www.eu-energystar.org)

European Council, Presidency conclusions, March 2007

Foxconn Technology Group, 2011 CSER Annual report, June 2012

Fraunhofer IZM and Bio Intelligence Services, Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Complex Set-Top Boxes (Lot 18), prepared for the European Commission, 2008.

Fraunhofer IZM and Bio Intelligence Services, Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Networked Standby (Lot 26), prepared for the European Commission, 2011.

Geoff Nairn, TCL shuts up TV shop in Europe, 2006

Glass Global, SCHOTT Fires Up New Melting Tank for TFT-LCD, 2013

Global Lighting Technologies Inc., Company data URL: http://www.glthome.com/1-2\_Locations.html

Global sources electric components, Makers expand TFT-LCD, LED backlight optical film production, January 14, 2013

Harrison, R., Database EU TVs, Feb. 2013, Intertek for the European Commission.

Herbstman Julie et al, 2010. Prenatal Exposure to PBDEs and Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 May; 118(5): 712–719.

IEC/TR 62635:2012, End of life recyclability calculation for electrical and electronic equipment, Oct. 2012.

Jamie Yap, Malaysia to be Samsung's largest overseas base by 2015, November 23, 2012

Jana Sehnalkova, The Relations between the Czech Republic and the PRC: Some Key Issues, September 2010

Jeff Perkins, LED Manufacturing Technologies & Costs DOE Workshop, April 2009

Jeffrey Wu, Chunghwa Picture to be Taiwan's top maker of small and medium panels, December 29, 2011

Jeffrey Wu, Troubled Japanese OEMs Drive Outsourced LCD TVs Against In-House Production, September 10, 2012

Julian Ho, AUO expected to decrease 32-inch TV panel production by 25% in 1Q13, Taipei, January 3, 2013

Ken Werner, Taiwanese CCFL Giant Turns to LED BLU's, May 19, 2006

Kennecott Utah Copper, Gold Environmental Profile, Life Cycle Assessment, 2006

Kevin Parrish, Sharp Intros IGZO 32-inch 4K2K (3840 x 2160) Display, November 28, 2012

Knut Sander, Stephanie Schilling, Frank Marscheider-Weidemann, Henning Wilts, Nadia von Gries, Julia Hobohm, Abfallwirtschaftliche Produktverantwortung unter Ressourcenschutzaspekten, im aufrag des umweltbundusamtes, August 2012

Kwang-Ryul Kim, Junsin Yi, Sung-Hak Cho, Nam-Hyun Kang, Myung-Woo Cho, Bo-Sung Shin, Byoungdeog Choi, SLM-based maskless lithography for TFT-LCD, Applied Surface Science 255 (2009) 7835–7840

LEDinside, LED Package Price For Lighting Application Falls By 10%, New Developments on LED Backlight Market with Arrival of Direct-Lit Displays, June 22, 2012

LEDinside, The Price of LED For Backlight Application Downtrend Curbs in 3Q12, Inventory Adjustment Remains an Issue, August 7, 2012

LEDs Magazine, LED market grew by 93% in 2010, driven by backlights, February 23, 2011

Lim Ji-Sum et al. Association of Brominated Flame Retardants with Diabetes and Metabolic syndrome in the United States Population: 2003-2004. Diabetes Care 2008 Jun;

Loewe, Investor relations, December 2012

Logic technologies, Company data URL: http://www.logictechno.com/index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=2&menuid=69

Lumitronics, Company data URL: http://www.leds.de/en/LED-strips-modules-oxid-oxid-oxid-oxid-oxid/LED-matrix/BacklightMatrix-290x203-70-Nichia-LEDs.html

Main KM, Kiviranta H, Virtanen HE, Sundqvist E, Tuomisto JT, Tuomisto J, Vartiainen T, Skakkebaek NE, Toppari J. Flame retardants in placenta and breast milk and cryptorchidism in newborn boys. Environ Health

Perspect 2007, in press, doi: 10.1289/ehp.9924.

Matthias Buchert, Andreas Manhart, Daniel Bleher, Detlef Pingel, Recycling critical raw materials from waste electronic equipment, February 24, 2012

Mathieux Fabrice , Ardente Fulvio et al. (2017), Critical raw materials and the circular economy, Background report - Study, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), ISBN 978-92-79-74282-8

Mathieux F., Ardente F. Talens Peiró L. (2016), Revision of methods to assess material efficiency of energy related products and potential requirements - Environmental footprint and material efficiency support for product policy, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), ISBN 978-92-79-63889-3

Medion, Annual report 2012, short fiscal year January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012

Meeker, J. D., & Stapleton, H. M. (2009). House Dust Concentrations of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in Relation to Hormone Levels and Semen Quality Parameters. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(3), 318–323. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901332

Meskers, C.E.M., Hagelüken, C., Salhofer, S., Spitzbart, M. Impact of pre-processing routes on precious metal recovery from PCs. Proceedings of European Metallurgical Conference EMC 2009. Innsbruck, Austria . 28 June – 1 July 2009.

Michael Spaid, Wet-Processable Transparent Conductive Materials, Information Display Materials issue Vol. 28 no.1 , January 2012

Michel Anette, Attali Sophie, Bush Eric (2014), European TV market 2007 – 2013 Energy efficiency before and during the implementation of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling regulations Second report, complemented with 2013 sales data. Topten International Services, Zurich, Switzerland 21th July 2014

Mike King, LCD backlight market in decline during 2012 due to insufficient demand for LCD TVs, September 21, 2012

Mike Wheatley, Plasma Market Share Hits 15-Month Low As LCD TVs Dominate, August 13, 2012

N. Duque Ciceri, T. G. Gutowski, M. Garetti, A Tool to Estimate Materials and Manufacturing Energy for a Product, ....

Nanjing Jright Illuminating, CCFL for LCD Backlighting, 2012

Ningsun Zhou S et al.(2010), Liquid chromatography–atmospheric pressure photoionization tandem mass spectrometry for analysis of 36 halogenated flame retardants in fish, Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1217, Issue 5, 29 January 2010, Pages 633-641

NPD DisplaySearch ,Updated All-in-One PC Forecast Mirrors Mini-Note Growth, with 13% CAGR from 2010-2015, April 26, 2010

NPD DisplaySearch, 4K LCD TVs Expected to Outpace OLED TV Shipments, January 4, 2013

NPD DisplaySearch, DisplaySearch Forecasts 11% Demand and 13% Capacity Increases for TFT LCD Glass Substrates in 2011, January 18, 2009

NPD DisplaySearch, Large-Area Backlight Unit Optical Film Area Demand Grows 22% Q/Q in Q2’09; LG Electronics and 3M Led in Prism Sheet Shipments, July 7, 2009

NPD DisplaySearch, Low-Cost Direct LED Backlights to Reduce Premium for LED-Backlit LCD TVs, January 18, 2012

NPD DisplaySearch, New AMOLED TV Costs Ten Times More than LCD TV to Produce, August 8, 2012

NPD DisplaySearch, OLED Display Technology Moving to Compete in the TV Market, January 6, 2012

NPD DisplaySearch, Shipments of Devices with Cover Glass to Increase Threefold in 2011, December 1, 2011

NPD DisplaySearch, Summary of The TFT LCD Materials Report, ....

NPD DisplaySearch, TFT LCD Components and Materials Market Faces Twin Challenges of Declining Revenues and Dramatic Changes in Component Technologies, March 18, 2009

NPD DisplaySearch, TFT LCD Polarizer Revenue Expected to Fall for the First Time in 2009; Nitto Denko Remains #1 TFT LCD Polarizer Supplier, January 20, 2009

NPD DisplaySearch, Updated All-in-One PC Forecast Mirrors Mini-Note Growth, with 13% CAGR from 2010-2015, April 26, 2010

NPD DisplaySearch, LG Display Led 2010 Unit and Area Shipments, While Samsung Maintains Lead in Revenues, February 14, 2011

NRDC (2015), THE BIG PICTURE: ULTRA HIGH-DEFINITION TELEVISIONS COULD ADD $1 BILLION TO VIEWERS’ ANNUAL ELECTRIC BILLS, Nov. 2015, available from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/uhd-tv-energy-use-report.pdf , last viewed 20/04/18

Pall Corporation, Photolithography Filtration for Display Manufacturing, ....

Paul Semenza, Display Glass: Bigger, Thinner, and Stronger, Information Display Materials issue Vol.28 no.1, January 2012

Peetersa J., Vanegasa P. et al. Closed loop recycling of plastics containing Flame Retardants. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 84 (2014) 35–43

Peeters JR, et . Active disassembly for the endof-life treatment of flat screen televisions: challenges and opportunities. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign 2011: 7th international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing; 2011. p. 535–40.

Perrine Chancerel, Substance flow analysis of the recycling of small waste electrical and electronic equipment, An assessment of the recovery of gold and palladium, Berlin, 2010

Pete Pachal, Is plasma TV dead?, May 11, 2012

Pete Putmanon, Buy a Plasma TV While You Can, July 19, 2012

Photronics, Inc., Analyst / Investor Day, September 8, 2011

PMR, Construction sector in Poland, TPV AOC to build plant in Gorzow, 2006-07-11

POLINARES EU policy on natural resources, POLINARES working paper n. 39; Fact Sheet: Indium , March 2012

Pradeep Chakraborty, High-brightness LED market value in 2011 estimated at $9 billion; LED TV backlight market value dropped by 18 percent from 2010, August 24, 2011

Prague Daily Monitor, Taiwan's Pegatron Czech to sack most of its 1,500 staff, February 11, 2011

Prophoto GmbH, Trends im foto- und imagingmarkt Photokina 2012, 2012

Quincy Liang, Hon Hai Precision Wins Samsung's Order for 5 M. LCDTVs, Tapei, February 1, 2010

Rasmus Larsen, 2011 TV MARKET SHARE REPORT, 16 February 2012

Rasmus Larsen, JAPAN DISPLAY BEGINS PRODUCTION,OLED FROM 2013, April 3, 2012

Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment (recast version), OJ 13.2.2008, L39, p.1-7.

Ricky Tu, Digitimes Research: Iljin Display expected to become number one touch screen supplier in Korea by the end of 2012, Taipei, December 27, 2012

Rodney Chan, CES 2013: Corning to showcase Gorilla Glass 3, January 4, 2013

Roze E, Meijer L, Bakker A, Van Braeckel KNJA, Sauer PJJ, Bos AF. 2009. Prenatal exposure to organohalogens, including brominated ﬂame retardants, inﬂuences motor cognitive, and behavioral performance at school age. Environ Health Perspect 117:1953–1958.

SANJU KHATRI, Digital Signage and Professional Display Market Set for Solid Growth in 2012, April 20, 2012

Semiconductor today, Aixtron grows revenue 24% in Q2, as order backlog hits €250m, July 29, 2010

Sharp Corporation, Sharp Sustainability Report 2012

Sharp Manufacturing Poland Ltd., Environmental Site Report FY2012

SHARP, Sharp to Introduce PN-K321 LCD Monitor Featuring the Industry's Thinnest\*2 Design in a High-Resolution 4K2K Display, November 28, 2012

Skyscrapercity, China televisions and panels industry updates, April 22, 2011

SMG Indium Resources Ltd., The indium market, 2010

SMG Indium Resources Ltd., Indium Fact Sheet, January 16, 2013

SolidState Technology, LEDs to get backlighting market share help from rising CCFL costs, August 13, 2012

Sony Global, Company data URL: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201206/12-0628E/

Sony, LED backlight technology, ....

Speight, James G. (2017), Environmental Organic Chemistry for Engineers, Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-12-804492-6

Steve Sechrist, LED Backlit TVs to Dominate in 2012, May 22, 2012

Stobbe, L. (Fraunhofer Institute IZM, contractor), Preparatory Study “Televisions”(Lot 5), Report for Tender No. TREN/D1/40 lot 5-2005 (Ökoinstitut)Sumitomo chemical, CSR REPORT 2012

TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited, LCD TV Sales Volume up 26.8%, Reaching 1,502,625 Sets in November The proportion of LED Backlight LCD TV in the PRC market jumped to 99.7%, December 6, 2012

TechniSat Digital GmbH, TechniSat baut Standort Staßfurt aus!, June 18, 2009

The European Commission, " Discussion paper on the review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations for television and on the draft Regulation on electronic displays, including computer monitors", presented at the CF meeting of 8 October 2012

Tom Lo, Digitimes Research: Taiwan makers to see 17.6% drop in 2012 LCD TV shipments, Taipei, November 23, 2012

Tom Mainelli, Ron Glaz, Digital Photo Frame 2008-2012 Forecast: Special Study, July 2008, IDC #213237, Volume: 1, Tab: Markets

Tony Huang, 2H 2012 global TFT panel market forecast, Taipei, Thursday 23August 2012

Tony Huang, Digitimes Research: China-based panel makers expected to extend influence in the TV panel market, Taipei, January 2, 2013

Tony Huang, Digitimes Research: Large-size TFT LCD panel unit shipments to decrease 3.5% in 2013, Taipei, November 27, 2012

Tony Huang, Digitimes Research: Panel makers trends in 2012 and 2013, Taipei, November 30, 2012

Tony Huang, Ultra HD TV panel shipments expected to reach 10 million in 2014, Taipei, January 14, 2013

Toppan Technical Design Center CO.,Ltd., Colour filters for LCD's, ....

Toppan Technical Design Center CO.,Ltd., Photomasks for semiconductors, ....

Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which entered into force on 1st December 2009 (the content of article 95 TEC was moved to article 114 TFEU), replaced Treaty on the European Communities (TEC)

Turyk ME, Persky VW, Imm P, Knobeloch L, Chatterton R, Jr., Anderson HA. 2008. Hormone Disruption by PBDEs in Adult Male Sport Fish Consumers. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Dec; 116(12): 1635–1641.

U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Indium, January 2011

US Environmental Protection Agency, US Energy Star database pc monitors, extract Dec. 2012.

US Environmental Protection Agency, US Energy Star database televisions, extract Dec. 2012.

Vanegas P., Peeters J. R., Cattrysse D., Duflou J. R. (ku Leuven), Paolo Tecchio P., Mathieux F., Ardente F. (JRC) (2016), Study for a method to assess the ease of disassembly of electrical and electronic equipment - Method development and application to a flat panel display case study - Study, Joint Research Centre, ISBN 978-92-79-58388-9
   

VDMA, European Technology: Flat Panel Displays, November 2006

VINCENT GU, Domestic LCD TV Consumption in China Retreats Dramatically, November 16, 2012

Wagner F., Peeters J. et al. Evaluation of the Quality of Postconsumer Plastics Obtained from Disassembly-Based Recycling Strategies. Polymer Engineering and Science, 2017, DOI 10.1002/pen

White, P. et al., Environmental, Technical and Market Analysis Concerning the Eco-design of Television Devices, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological studies (JRC-IPTS), 2006

Yanhua Lu, Yiping Wang, Li Zhu, Qi Wang, Enhanced performance of heat recovery ventilator by airflow-induced film vibration (HRV performance enhanced by FIV), International Journal of Thermal Sciences 49 (2010) 2037-2041

Yole Développement SA, LED Front-End Manufacturing, 2012

Yoo Hyeong-Joon, Korean CCFL Production Capacity, Overtook By Taiwan, 2007/05/10

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)
       Commission impact assessment Guidelines
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)
       Estimated at 0.50 Australian dollar (exchange rate at the time approximately 0.6 €/Australian dollar) by George Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd, Regulatory Impact Statement, Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia, February 1999, p. 40
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)
       SWD(2012) 329 final, p.31
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)
       Equivalent models (i.e. models that are exactly the same with regard to energy efficiency, but sold under different model codes or even brand names) can be registered through a single registration and therefore count here as one model.
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)
       For electronic products 2500-3000 per product group based on Energy Star registrations, for many domestic appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, tumble driers vacuum cleaners it is likely to be much lower, possibly as low as 500. Industry databases for other domestic appliances such refrigeration and cooking points to about 2000-3000. For heating/cooling equipment it is estimated to be lower, in the range of 250-1000 depending on the specific product group. For commercial and industrial products it would be in the range of 2000-3000 for motors and fans, but as low as 50 for power transformers (VHK)
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)
       At an employee tariff of € 32.10 per hour representative for professionals
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)
       100 Australian dollar per model (exchange rate at the time approximately 0.6 €/Australian dollar). In addition, Australia charges a registration fee of 150 Australian dollar per model (George Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd, Regulatory Impact Statement Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia: Supplementary Cost-Benefit Analysis on Transition to a Revised Energy Label, November 1999, p. 18)
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)
       SWD(2012) 329 final, Annex X
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)
       http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/tender/doc/2013/tender\_specifications\_eaci\_iee\_2013\_002.pdf
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)
       SWD(2014) 23 final part 2, p. 52 and 54
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)
       Although there were seven applicable EU internal market directives that caused the total cost, not all of those impacted design significantly and thus the weight of ecodesign among the seven is estimated to be higher than one seventh: at one fourth.
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)
       € 8 million divided by 4 (estimated share of impact of ecodesign in EU internal market directives applicable to laptops) multiplied by 0.5 (50% extra design costs on top of business-as-usual due to the change of least life cycle cost requirement to break-even point requirement) multiplied by 45 (to account for all 15 product groups, because laptops only constitute 1/3 of a product group).
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)
       http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2362-ee-15-2014.html
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)
       P. Waide et al., Enforcement of energy efficiency regulations for energy consuming equipment: findings from a new European study, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference EEDAL'11 Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)
      VHK et al., Supporting the Commission with testing the energy consumption of computer displays in light of the update of data for the review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations on electronic displays, Final Report, Dec. 2017. Tests were done by Intertek. The test results were analysed by Robert Harrison Associates Ltd.. Technical project leader was Viegand Maagøe and contract manager for the consortium that did this assignment for the European Commission was VHK.
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)
     Pers. comm. Robert Harrison, Jan. 2018. Note that the light output in one direction can be given in luminance in cd/m2 or ‘nits’
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

     
    <https://www.dial.de/en/blog/article/efficiency-of-ledsthe-highest-luminous-efficacy-of-a-white-led>
     
    <https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-achieves-220-lumens-per-watt-with-new-mid-power-led-package>
     (June 2017).
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)
     Won Young Park, Amol Phadke, Nihar Shah, Virginie Letschert, Efﬁciency improvement opportunities in TVs: Implications for market transformation programs, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Policy 59 (2013) 361–372.
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)
     A reﬂective polarizer recovers a certain type of polarized light, which cannot be transmitted through the rear polarizer of the LCD panel, by reﬂecting this portion of light back to the backlight unit and depolarizing it so that the light can be newly polarized to transmit back to the panel.
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)
     SDR= Standard Dynamic Range
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)
     Compare: ‘lumen’ is the space integral of the candelas in all directions.
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)
     Jones, K., Harrison, R., The Impact of Changing TV technologies and Market Trends on the Energy Consumption on TVs and the need for a better TV Energy Test Method, 2012.
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)
     Support 10-bit colour depth, BT.2020 colour space presentation, HDR (HDR 10 or Dolby Vision HDR), be capable of producing more than 90 per cent of the DCI P3 color standard and of course 4K resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels)
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)
     https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)

    http://www.eizo.com/library/basics/10\_ways\_to\_address\_eye\_fatigue/#05
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)
     Power supply with Pulse Width Modulation. The alternative is an ‘analogue’ AC-DC transformer (‘DC’ power supply). EIZO mentions that with a DC power supply the color reproduction declines at low brightness and brightness cannot be set very low and the price is higher.
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)
     Won Young Park, Amol Phadke, Nihar Shah, Virginie Letschert, Efﬁciency improvement opportunities in TVs: Implications for market transformation programs, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Policy 59 (2013) 361–372.
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)
     Whilst data on TV energy use is widely available because of information requirements included in the current Ecodesign and Labelling Regulations, data on monitors is less easy to be found.
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)
     
       Both data provided by industry and data autonomously collected.
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)
     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.093.01.0024.01.ENG>
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)
     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0065>
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)
     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32012L0019>
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)
     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0060>
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)

     Under the Water Framework Directive Octa-BDE & Deca-BDE are listed among the substances to be monitored, while Penta-BDE is the only BFR listed as a hazardous substance.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)
     
       Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2014/35/EU of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member Statesrelating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (2017/C 298/02), OJ, C298, p. 14, d.d.8.9.2017
:   [(36)](#footnoteref37)
     Recycling of Plastics from LCD Television Sets, Pilot project on mechanical plastics recycling from post-consumer flat panel display-LCDs
:   [(37)](#footnoteref38)
     http://www.iosys-seidel.de/en/sss3.html
:   [(38)](#footnoteref39)
     Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
:   [(39)](#footnoteref40)
     See www.pinfa.eu
:   [(40)](#footnoteref41)
     
       Endocrine disruptors are substances that impact the hormone system. They interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body that are responsible for development, behaviour, fertility, and maintenance of homeostasis (normal cell metabolism).and damage in particular during the growth process.
:   [(41)](#footnoteref42)
     COM/2017/0490 final
:   [(42)](#footnoteref43)
     
       Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions on the 2017 list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU, Brussels, 13.9.2017 , COM(2017) 490 final
:   [(43)](#footnoteref44)
     
       Martin Lokanc et al., The Availability of Indium: The Present, Medium Term, and Long Term, NREL for US DoE, October 2015.
:   [(44)](#footnoteref45)

     Global production 2010 estimated at 8000 t. (wikipedia)
:   [(45)](#footnoteref46)

    Rivers, A., Nitrogen trifluoride: the new mandatory Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas, Ecometrica, August 15, 2012. http://ecometrica.com/blog/nitrogen-trifluoride-the-7th-mandatory-kyoto-protocol-greenhouse-gas
:   [(46)](#footnoteref47)
     Hard data are not available. Most sources mention that ‘most’ is used in display manufacturing. The figure of 6000 t comes from wikipedia.en
:   [(47)](#footnoteref48)
     6000 t divided by 250 million large TFT panels produced worldwide.

[Top](#document3)