EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013SC0014
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for imaging equipment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for imaging equipment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for imaging equipment
/* SWD/2013/014 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for imaging equipment /* SWD/2013/014 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the voluntary ecodesign scheme
for imaging equipment This working document is intended for use
by the staff of the European Commission and is for information purposes only.
It does not represent the official position of the Commission nor does it
anticipate such a position. Lead DG: ENER Associated DG: ENTR Other
involved services: SG, LS, CLIMA, CNECT, COMP, ECFIN, EMPL, ENV, JRC, JUST,
MARKT, SANCO, TAXUD, TRADE, RTD Executive
Summary Imaging equipment are energy-related
products covered by the Ecodesign Directive
2009/125/EC. The Ecodesign Directive establishes a
framework for laying down ecodesign requirements for energy-related products.
Ecodesign requirements for products constitute an important instrument for
meeting the policy objectives under the ‘Resource-Efficient Europe — Flagship
Initiative’[1],
the ‘Energy 2020’[2]
strategy paper and the Commission’s ‘Energy Efficiency Plan 2011’[3]. This document and the impact assessment
report consider whether ecodesign requirements for imaging equipment should be
adopted under the Ecodesign Directive to reduce the environmental impact of imaging
equipment, in particular its energy consumption. 1. Problem definition Compared to the situation with most other
products considered for measures, there is no major ecodesign problem for
imaging equipment, as energy efficiency improvements and paper savings through
duplexing are advancing rapidly, driven by voluntary policy instruments. The fact that the full technical savings
potential is not being fully exploited is mainly due to the dynamics of the
sector, which has achieved efficiency improvement rates of over 6 %
annually and electricity savings of as much as 87 % over the last 15
years. A concern is that there is no guarantee
that the current positive trend in energy efficiency improvements will continue
and that current horizontal legislation only covers selected environmental
aspects. 2. Objectives The preparatory study[4] and the 2012 research[5] found that there is a
cost-effective potential for reducing the energy consumption of imaging
equipment, including paper consumption, and that the full potential is
currently not being exploited. The objective is therefore to develop an
ecodesign measure, including self-regulation, to help achieve current policy
objectives, i.e. 20 % energy savings and a 20 % reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions over the 1990-2020 period as well as the promotion of
(non-energy) material resource efficiency through e.g. material reduction (e.g.
paper), recycling (e.g. of larger plastic parts, electronics, metals) and reuse
(e.g. toner cartridges). The 2012 research indicated that, despite
the considerable savings already achieved, the target levels for 2020 could
still be ambitious and could aim for 60 % energy savings and a 90 %
duplexing rate for typical office equipment over the 2012-2020 period. In line with recitals 18 and 19 and Article
15(6) of the Ecodesign Directive, self-regulation should be explored as the
preferred option. 3. Criteria for ecodesign
measures The approach to developing the proposed
measure and its impact assessment was structured in four steps. Step 1: Legal
basis: compliance with the Ecodesign Directive, Article 15 In accordance with Article 15(4a) and
Annexes I and II to the Ecodesign Directive, the Commission has carried out a
technical, environmental and economic preparatory study to assess the criteria
for ecodesign implementing measures for imaging equipment[6]. The study has shown that these criteria are
met, as (1) imaging equipment is placed on the EU market in large quantities,
(2) the environmental impact of the life-cycle electricity consumption of
imaging equipment is significant, (3) there is a considerable disparity in the
environmental impacts of imaging equipment currently on the market. Cost-effective
technical solutions exist that could lead to significant improvements. Table 1: Criteria of Article 15(2) of the
Ecodesign Directive applied to imaging equipment Art. 15(2a) || Annual EU sales volume (units) || 2010 31 million 2020 37 million 2030 41 million Art. 15(2b) || Environmental impact: direct electricity consumption of imaging equipment, in TWh electricity and Mt CO2 equivalent per year [1] || direct (electricity) 2010 8.7 TWh (3.6 Mt CO2) 2020 9.1 TWh (3.5 Mt CO2) 2030 10.4 TWh (3.6 Mt CO2) Environmental impact: indirect energy for production of paper consumed by imaging equipment, in TWh electricity equivalent and Mt CO2 equivalent per year [2] || indirect (paper) 2010 38.8 TWh (5.8 Mt CO2) 2020 42.8 TWh (6.4 Mt CO2) 2030 47.0 TWh (7.0 Mt CO2) Art. 15(2c) || Improvement potential versus BAU in the same year (applying existing cost-effective technology, Voluntary sub-option ), expressed in units as above. || direct energy (efficiency improvement) 2020 7.9 TWh (4.1 Mt CO2) 2030 9.1 TWh (4.3 Mt CO2) indirect energy (duplexing and N-printing) 2020 7.1 TWh (1.1 Mt CO2) 2030 7.8 TWh (1.1 Mt CO2) [1] Conversion from TWh electricity to Mt CO2 equivalent takes into
account improvements in CO2 emissions of power plants over the 2010-2030 period
(source MEErP 2011) [2] Office paper production: primary energy 40
MJ/kg paper, conversion to electricity equivalent using primary energy factor
2.5 (40 MJ primary= 16 MJ electric = 4.44 kWh electric), greenhouse gas
emissions 0.6 kg/kg paper (source MEErP 2011). Paper consumption has been
calculated according to ENERGY STAR duty cycles. The criteria are fully met by monochrome or
colour output imaging equipment with ink-jet (IJ), electro-photographic (EP/‘laser’)
and solid-ink (SI, included in the EP category) marking technologies. EP
equipment comprises copiers, printers, multifunctional devices (MFDs) and
facsimile machines and IJ equipment is categorised into multi- and single-function
devices. Legacy marking technology such as thermal
transfer (TT), direct thermal (DT) and dye sublimation (DT) is excluded as it
is sold in small numbers and predominantly used in special applications such as
the printing of receipts, labels and textiles. For the same reasons, large-size
printers, e.g. for technical drawings, are also excluded. Finally, high-speed
printers for e.g. professional print shops are excluded because cost
considerations in this market segment drive buyers to purchase only the most
energy-efficient models. Step 2: Existing initiatives and
capacity of market forces to address the issue Articles 15(2) and 15(4c) of the Ecodesign
Directive require relevant EU and national environmental legislation to be
considered. Imaging equipment has not been subject to any product-specific
mandatory measures, but certain aspects have been addressed by horizontal
legislation on standby and off-mode electricity use[7], chemicals[8], and waste[9]. The energy use of imaging
equipment in the non-residential sector is part of energy accounting under the
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive[10]
and the upcoming Energy Efficiency Directive[11].
It is also included indirectly in carbon accounting under the EU Emission
Trading Scheme. The energy efficiency and core
environmental impacts of imaging equipment are addressed mainly by the
voluntary EU ENERGY STAR programme, following EU-US Agreements since the year
2001. Further support via Green Public Procurement criteria (GPP) and the EU
Ecolabel, which largely use ENERGY STAR requirements and formats, is planned
for 2012. Since 2008, meeting the ENERGY STAR
criteria, which are updated every three to four years, has been mandatory for
equipment procurement by EU institutions and central governments of Member
States[12].
The response of the imaging equipment industry to the measures has been
positive, with a high participation rate (>90 % market coverage), a
large share of compliant products (>90 % of models under current
requirements) and self-declaration at a satisfactory level of reliability[13]. Where market
and/or regulatory failures for imaging equipment exist, they concern mainly the
low-volume equipment in the consumer market and less the professional office
market, according to the preparatory study. They can arise because current
electricity prices do not reflect environmental costs for society and thus play
an insufficient role in the purchase decision (negative externality).
Furthermore, most consumers base their choice of equipment on purchase price
and other factors like availability, service and ‘trusted’ brand names, rather
than energy costs, because of lack of adequate information (asymmetric
information). In this context, it is relevant that the ENERGY STAR logo is well
known in the office sector but much less among private consumers. Finally,
cases of market failure occur where investment costs and running costs are
borne by different parties, e.g. a company purchasing department may have a
different financial perspective than the business unit actually using the
equipment and paying for its running costs (split incentives). Step 3: Policy objectives and levels of
ambition The general objective is to address the market
failures and externalities by taking appropriate ecodesign measures. The
options considered for detailed impact analysis were: no EU action (business as
usual, BAU), self-regulation (‘Voluntary’ option), and ecodesign requirements (‘Ecodesign’
option). The industry has expressed its preference for a voluntary agreement
(‘self-regulation’) over a regulatory measure. Annex II to the Ecodesign Directive
provides that energy consumption requirements should normally be set at a level
so as to minimise life-cycle costs (unless other factors make this too strict). The starting point of the analysis was the
preparatory study, which provided the basis for the BAU (Business-as-Usual)
scenario. Sales data from the preparatory study are used in the stock model to calculate
stock, electricity consumption and paper consumption for all the options. Additional analysis was performed of the
models registered in the EU ENERGY STAR database at www.eu-energystar.org. It found the electricity consumption
and duplexing characteristics of all imaging equipment models placed on the EU
market that were registered in the EU ENERGY STAR database in 2012 but also in
preceding reference years back to 2009. This assessment showed not only the
number of models compliant with ENERGY STAR requirements version 1.0, 1.1 (on
which the current Voluntary Agreement (VA) is based) and the draft version 2.0
(to enter in force in 2013 and on which the next version of the VA will be
based), but also revealed how much better these models scored with respect to
the ENERGY STAR minimum requirements. The results of this assessment are shown for
the Voluntary option. It was assumed under this option that a voluntary
agreement would maintain the pace of improvements at levels above the ENERGY
STAR requirements (as in previous years). The Ecodesign option lays down minimum
mandatory efficiency requirements for imaging equipment placed on the market.
The disadvantage of a Regulation requiring 100 % compliance by definition
vis-à-vis an effective voluntary agreement aimed at 90 % compliance is its
lack of flexibility, so the ambition is usually considerably lower. At first
sight, this may seem contradictory, but essentially, under Article 15(5) of the
Ecodesign Directive (‘no negative impact’ on functionality and industry
competitiveness), the ambition level for requirements under a Regulation is
mainly determined by the weakest 10 % of the market, consisting of special
products or products made by financially weaker companies. In contrast, the
ambition level of a voluntary agreement can focus on the 90 % ‘normal’
products, produced by innovative, financially healthy manufacturers. The Ecodesign
option takes this into account: the first tier was set for 2014, assuming an
efficiency target of 40 % under the BAU level and the second tier was set
for 2016 assuming a target 60 % below BAU. For duplexing, it was assumed —
optimistically — that, after formulation of a list of exemptions, requirements could
be set at the same level as for the Voluntary option, i.e. for typical office
printers a 75 % (2014) and 85 % (2016) duplexing rate would apply. Step 4: Environmental, economic and
social impact assessment The analysis of sub-options found the
savings shown in Table 2. The table and figure below show the direct
electricity consumption of imaging equipment, the indirect energy consumption
(calculated as electricity equivalent) needed to produce paper and the total
energy consumption (direct + indirect) under BAU and the savings of the two
other options compared to BAU. Table 2:
Summary of the savings generated by imaging equipment in the EU-27 under
different options compared to the baseline BAU for 2020 and 2030 (monetary
savings are expressed in constant 2010 euros) Total savings (direct and indirect paper energy excl. toner) 2020 Versus Baseline BAU || BAU (levels) || Voluntary || Ecodesign || 2020 || 2030 || 2020 || 2030 || 2020 || 2030 Energy consumption (TWh) || || || || || || Direct || 9.13 || 10.40 || 7.92 || 9.07 || 5.56 || 6.31 Indirect || 42.75 || 49.99 || 7.12 || 7.83 || 6.54 || 7.83 Total || 51.88 || 57.39 || 15.04 || 16.91 || 12.10 || 14.15 || || || || || || CO2 emissions (Mt) || || || || || || Direct || 3.47 || 3.54 || 2.99 || 3.09 || 2.10 || 2.15 Indirect || 6.41 || 7.05 || 1.07 || 1.17 || 0.98 || 1.17 Total || 9.88 || 10.59 || 4.06 || 4.26 || 3.08 || 3.32 || || || || || || Costs saving excl. toner (in bn euros) [14] || || || || || || Direct || 2.43 || 4.10 || 2.11 || 3.58 || 1.48 || 2.49 Indirect || 42.75 || 46.99 || 7.12 || 7.83 || 6.54 || 7.83 Total || 45.18 || 51.09 || 9.24 || 11.41 || 8.02 || 10.32 Figure 1 shows that electricity consumption
will grow if no measures are taken. The two options, Voluntary and Ecodesign,
will substantially reduce the growth of electricity consumption. Figure 1: EU-27 Energy consumption total
TWh/year 4. Conclusions The Voluntary option is the preferred
choice. It contributes to solving the continuity problem with the current positive
trend towards energy efficiency and paper saving (duplexing and N-printing) and
addresses other resource-efficiency issues like recycling and reuse. In this
dynamic product sector, it generates considerably higher savings than the
alternative of mandatory ecodesign requirements, provides flexibility, enables
quicker updating of target levels, and has a lower administrative burden.
Unlike mandatory measures, it poses no risk of a negative impact on the
effectiveness of current successful policy measures such as EU ENERGY STAR. Specifically, the Voluntary option entails: ·
a contribution to the ‘20-20-20’ target
(1990-2020 period) of 25 TWh/a in direct electricity savings through efficiency
improvements and the equivalent of approximately 4 TWh/a electricity savings
through indirect paper resource savings, making a total of 29 TWh/a (equivalent
to 1.1 % of the EU’s total electricity consumption in 2007); ·
a contribution to the ‘20-20-20’ target
(1990-2020 period) in the form of direct reductions of 9.6 Mt CO2 eq/a (electricity)
and 0.6 Mt CO2 eq/a (paper) in greenhouse gases, making a total of 10.2 Mt
CO2/a (0.2 % of EU greenhouse gas emissions); ·
a contribution to non-energy resource efficiency
of over 1 million tonnes (1 Mt) in reduced office paper consumption over the
1990-2020 period and a contribution to recycling and reuse; ·
that the requirements of the Ecodesign Directive
2009/125/EC, in particular recitals 18 and 19, Article 15(6) and Annex VIII,
are met, ·
that the requirements will already have entered
into force and are less costly than in the case of a Regulation, ·
that there is compatibility and complementarity
with the existing policy instruments, ·
that there is no significant administrative
burden for manufacturers or retailers, ·
insignificant, if any, increase in purchasing
cost, which would be largely offset by savings during the use-phase of the
product, ·
no significant impact on the competitiveness of
industry and on employment, in particular in SMEs. [1] A Resource-Efficient Europe — Flagship initiative
under the Europe 2020 strategy, EC, 26.1.2011, COM(2011) 21. [2] Energy 2020, A strategy for
competitive, sustainable and secure energy, EC, 10.11.2010, COM(2010) 639 final. [3] Energy Efficiency Plan 2011, EC, 8.3.2011, COM(2011)
109 final. [4] EuP Preparatory study on Imaging Equipment compiled
by Fraunhofer IZM. [5] Research of the EU-ENERGY STAR database performed by
consultants (van Holsteijn en Kemna VHK) in 2012 (‘2012 research’). [6] http://www.ecoimaging.org/. [7] Regulation 1275/2008 on standby and off-mode electric
power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment. [8] RoHS Directive 2011/65/EC (recast). [9] WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU (recast). [10] EPBD Directive 2010/31/EC (recast). [11] Draft directive on energy efficiency and repealing
Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC [COM(2011) 370, 22/06/2011]. [12] See Article 16 of 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. [13] Commission Communication
COM(2011) 337 final on the implementation of the ENERGY STAR programme in
the EU in the period 2006-2010. Brussels, 9.6.2011. [14] Paper cost savings are calculated by multiplying the
number of pages saved by € 0.02 (price for 1 page, also calculated in
chapter 2). Electricity rates are per kWh primary energy. For electricity, residential
electricity rates in 2010 excluding taxes are used, i.e. € 0.18/kWh,
assuming an annual (long-term 2011-2030 average) electricity price rate
increase of 4 %.