energy labels & standards

Discussion on EU Green Paper on Energy Efficiency

Product Policy:

Elements for a Discussion

Benoit Lebot

Climate Change - UNDP-GEFBenoit.lebot@undp.org

E-Conference - 19 October 2005

Professeur Kaya (World Summit 1992)

GHG =GHGTOE

TOEX

GDPGDP

X POPPOP

X

Greenhouse Gas

Emission=

Carbon ContainEnergy x Energy

Intensity xWealthx Population

Professeur Kaya (World Summit 1992)

GHG =GHGTOE

TOEX

GDPGDP

X POPPOP

X

½In 2050

= ? x ? x 8/3x 3/2

Professeur Kaya (World Summit 1992)

GHG =GHGTOE

TOEX

GDPGDP

X POPPOP

X

1/2= x1/4 1/2 x 4by 2050

3%/year 2%/year

Professeur Kaya (World Summit 1992)

GHG =GHGTOE

TOEX

GDPGDP

X POPPOP

X

1/2= x1/2 1/4 x 4by 2050

2%/year 3%/year

33%

10%

5% <1.5 % !

>110 TWh/year <40 TWh/year

CO2

Standby Power Waste = 2.5% World Electricity

= 1% World CO2 Emission

884775 747

615 558 519439 411

345 325

10

20

11

01

11

05

11

75

12

79

17

40

242 234 213

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

7 17 10 2 6 18 20 12 16 3 14 15 13 8 9 5 27 4 11Household ID

kWh/an

Source : SAVE/Ecodrôme 98

Average annual Savings: 723 kWh/an/house

ADEME - Cabinet O. SIDLER

Energy saved after replacing Fridges & Freezers

Consumption after replacing Fridges & Freezers

Metered Energy Saved with Efficient Refrigerators & Freezers in 20 Households

Metered Energy Saved with Efficient Lighting of 20 Households

209

247

104164185

187195196197246

250

283

286

309

383

799

5362

71

101

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2 18 10 20 5 16 15 8 14 9 19 4 11 17 6 7 12 27 13 3

Household ID

kWh/anEnergy saved after replacing bulbs

Consumption after replacing bulbs

Source : SAVE/Ecodrôme 98

Average Savings : 244 kWh / (an.house)

ADEME - Cabinet O. SIDLER

ADEME CEE

Demand outlook - residential appliances – IEA-Europe

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Other

Circulation pumps

PCs

Standby

Television

Dishwashing

Clothes-drying

Clothes-washing

Refrigeration

Lighting

Cooking

Water heating

Space cooling

Space heating

TWh

Projections for 17 European Member Countries

Source: IEA 1997 “Cool Appliance: Policy Strategy for Energy Efficient Homes”

Impact of more progressive appliance policies – IEA Europe 17

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

NoPolicies

Currentpolicies

LLCCfrom 2005

TWh/year

-31% -38%

Source: IEA 1997 “Cool Appliance: Policy Strategy for Energy Efficient Homes”

Projected savings by end-use IEA - 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Other uses

Circulation pumps

PCs

Standby

Television

Dishwashing

Clothes-drying

Clothes-washing

Refrigeration

Lighting

Cooking

Water heating

Space cooling

Space heating

TWh/yr

Projections for 17 IEA European

Countries

Source: IEA 1997 “Cool Appliance: Policy Strategy for Energy Efficient Homes”

How to bring energy efficient end-equipment

to the market?

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Market Transformation: A Model

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Market Transformation: A Model

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

CurrentSupply

2002

Market Transformation: A Model

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

CurrentSupply

2002

0

Supply2010

Policy Objective

Market Transformation: A Model

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

0

In the EU, 7 Energy Efficiency Categories

Market Transformation: A Model

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

0

A B C D E F G

In the EU, 7 Energy Efficiency Categories

Market Transformation: A Model

Energy

350

More efficient

Less efficient

AB

CDE

FG

A

ManufacturerModel

LogoABC123

Energy consumption kWh/year(Based on standard test results for 24h)

Actual consumption willdepend on how the appliance isused and where it is located

Further information is contained

in product brochures

Fresh food volume IFrozen food volume I

20080

40(dB(A)re 1 pW)Noise

Norm EN 153 May 1990Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC

The European Appliance Energy

Label

Does the label work?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

A B C D E F GEnergy label class

Sh

are

of

mo

del

s/m

ark

et

More Efficient Less Efficient

Transforming the Equipment MarketImpact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

B ECA D F G

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

A B C D E F GEnergy label class

Sh

are

of

mo

del

s/m

ark

et

EU Market 1992

More Efficient Less Efficient

Transforming the Equipment MarketImpact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

B ECA D F G

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

A B C D E F GEnergy label class

Sh

are

of

mo

del

s/m

ark

et EU Market 1996

EU Market 1992

More Efficient Less Efficient

Transforming the Equipment MarketImpact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

B ECA D F G

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

A B C D E F GEnergy label class

Sh

are

of

mo

del

s/m

ark

et

EU Market 1999

EU Market 1996

EU Market 1992

More Efficient Less Efficient

Transforming the Equipment MarketImpact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

B ECA D F G

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

A B C D E F GEnergy label class

Sh

are

of

mo

del

s/m

ark

et

EU Market 1999

EU Market 1996

EU Market 1992

More Efficient Less Efficient

EU Market 2003

Transforming the Equipment MarketImpact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

B ECA D F G

Evaluation of efficiency trends: EU clothes-washers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A B C D E F G NA

Mar

ket

Sh

are

April 2003

1996

Evaluation of efficiency trends: EU dishwashers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F G NA

Mar

ket

Sh

are

April 2003

1994

4 Main Methods used in the World for setting Energy

Efficiency Targets

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

CurrentSupply

0

Transforming the Equipment MarketSetting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 1

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 1

Method 1:Statistics Analysis

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 1

Method 1:Statistics Analysis

Cold appliance 1999

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

CurrentSupply

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 2

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

CurrentSupply

2000

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

To

p R

un

ner

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 2

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply2008

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

To

p R

un

ner

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 2

Method 2:Top Runner

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply1989

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

ME

PS

199

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply1990

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

Method 3:Minimum

Life-Cycle Cost

ME

PS

199

0

Elements of a life-cycle analysis

500 kWh/yr500 €

E

500 kWh/yr500 €

400 kWh/yr550 €D

E

Improved

Insulation

Elements of a life-cycle analysis

500 kWh/yr500 €

400 kWh/yr550 €

350 kWh/yr520 €

D

E

C

Improved

Insulation

ImprovedCompressor

Elements of a life-cycle analysis

500 kWh/yr500 €

400 kWh/yr550 €

350 kWh/yr520 €

280 kWh/yr570 €

2.5 year payback

D

E

C

B

Improved

Insulation

ImprovedCompressor

+

Elements of a life-cycle analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

B

A++

E CA

Purchase Price

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

Purchase Price

Life-Cycle Cost

B

A++

E CA

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

B

A++E

CA

Purchase Price

Life-Cycle Cost

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Minimum Life-Cycle Cost

ME

PS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

+5% energy cost

-10% energy costMinimum Life-Cycle Cost

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lif

e-C

ycle

Co

st €

Energy Savings in kWh/year

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

+5% energy cost

-10% energy cost

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply1990

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

ME

PS

199

3Method 3:Minimum

Life-Cycle Cost

ME

PS

199

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply1994

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

ME

PS

199

3

ME

PS

200

1

Method 3:Minimum

Life-Cycle Cost

ME

PS

199

0

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply2001

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

ME

PS

199

0

ME

PS

199

3

ME

PS

200

1

Method 3:Minimum

Life-Cycle Cost

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Supply2001

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 3

ME

PS

199

0

ME

PS

199

3

ME

PS

200

1

Method 3:Minimum

Life-Cycle Cost

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 4

CurrentSupply

Method 4:World’s

Best Practice

% of Market

Energy Efficiency Scale Less Efficient

MoreEfficient

Transforming the Equipment Market

0

Setting Minimum Energy Performance Standards: 4

US

ME

PS

200

4

Supply2004

Method 4:World’s

Best Practice

Beyond the Energy label

European Car Label

In application of EU Directive 99/94/EC, Several Countries (Denmark, NL, BE...) have selected the above format for Car Labelling

G

C

Energy Label also used for Buildings

B

In Austria, UK, Denmark, France…. private homes are being labeled

FD

www.display-campaign.org

Expanding EU Labels to Other Human Activities

• Building Materials : Windows, Insulation, Boilers, Pumps,

• Renewable Energy System: Photovoltaics, Solar Panels, Biomass System

• Food products: Fresh Food, Meat, Cooking Preparation

• Leisure: Air-Travel

EU Product Policy can enhance other Energy

Efficiency Policies

EU Energy Efficiency Standards & Labels

• Bring transparency to the market

• Help stakeholders work on energy efficiency

• Enhance market forces to address energy efficiency – for instance in commercial materials, advertisement

• Facilitate market based mechanisms: White Certificate, Energy Service Directive,…

Questions for Green Paper

EU Product Policy require sustainable resources:

• To collect data, understand the current situation, set baseline;

• To analyze, to consult stakeholders, to run test facility

• To monitor impact and update policy

• In the USA, $1M/year/end-use an average study last 3 years

• What are the resources available in Europe?

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in the US

• Over the last 15 years, US DOE spent $200 Millions on appliance programmes

• That is $2 /US Household

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in the US

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

US DOE EE Investment Energy Savings Net Savings

$2/Home

$150/Home

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in the US

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

US DOE EE Investment Energy Savings Net Savings

$2/Home

$150/Home

$600/Home

$450/Home

EU Product Policy: an Example to Numerous

Economies

B

Benefits of International Policy Co-ordination

• Greater Market Transparency

• Reduced Costs for Product Testing & Design

• Enhanced Prospects for Trade & Technology Transfer

• Reduced Cost for developing Government & Utility Efficiency Programs

Reasons for a Global Product Strategy

• CDM may address large GHG emitters, not the end-use sector

• S&L: a structure to Energy Efficiency efforts

• Most appliances evolved in International Market: S&L can easily be duplicated

• S&L can start on appliances, then expand to cover other sectors (buildings & vehicles)

Proposed Vision for an EU Product Policy

• Let´s get rid of obsolete technologies:– Incandescent and kerosene lighting – Electromagnetic ballast for fluorescent lighting– Standby power waste– Inefficient electric motor drive, air conditionners

appliances, …

• Safety norms as a model for Energy Efficiency norms• Partner with key International businesses• Work towards an International declaration for G8,

CSD, UNFCCC… set a Global Strategy

Inefficient Products to Museum

All over the World!