Table of contents

1.    Introduction: Political and legal context    3

1.1.    Benefits of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling    3

1.2.    Legal framework    4

1.2.1.    Current regulation for External Power Supplies    5

1.2.2.    EU Ecolabelling Regulation    6

1.3.    Legal context of the reviews    7

1.4.    Political Context    7

1.5.    Need to act    7

2.    Problem definition    8

2.1.    What are the problems?    8

2.1.1.    Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements    8

2.1.2.    Problem 2: Outdated scope    12

2.1.3.    Problem 3: Lack of readily available information    14

2.1.4.    Problem 4: Missed opportunities for contributing to circular economy objectives    16

2.2.    Who is affected by the problems?    17

2.2.1.    Consumers    17

2.2.2.    EU, Member States and MSAs    18

2.2.3.    Society as a whole    18

2.3.    How will the problems evolve?    18

2.3.1.    Slow uptake of more efficient EPS will lead to increased missed energy savings    18

2.3.2.    Market failure due to outdated regulation    19

3.    Why should the EU act?    19

3.1.    Legal basis    19

3.2.    Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action    20

3.3.    Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action    21

4.    Objectives: What is to be achieved?    21

4.1.    General objectives    21

4.2.    Specific objectives    21

5.    What are the available policy options?    22

5.1.    What is the baseline from which the options are assessed? - BAU option    23

5.2.    Description of the policy options    24

5.2.1.    Ecodesign legislative amendments that are common for all policy options (PO2 – PO4)    24

5.2.2.    Policy Option 2 - Global alignment    25

5.2.3.    Policy Option 3 - Ambitious EU measure    26

5.2.4.    Policy Option 4 - Very ambitious EU measure    27

5.3.    Options discarded at an early stage    28

5.3.1.    Voluntary agreement by the industry    28

5.3.2.    Energy labelling    29

5.3.3.    Requirement on minimum energy efficiency at 10% load    29

5.3.4.    Material efficiency requirements    30

5.3.5.    Scope extension to cover wireless chargers    31

6.    What are the impacts of the policy options?    32

6.1.    Methodological considerations and key assumptions    32

6.2.    Environmental impacts    33

6.2.1.    Electricity savings    33

6.2.2.    Greenhouse gases emissions reduction    34

6.3.    Business impacts    35

6.4.    Consumer expenditure    37

6.5.    Social impacts    39

6.6.    Other impacts    41

6.6.1.    Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)    41

6.6.2.    Administrative burden and compliance costs    41

7.    How do the options compare?    42

7.1.    Summary of the impacts    42

7.2.    Assessment of policy options    43

8.    Preferred option    44

8.1.    Preferred option – Why?    44

8.2.    REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)    46

9.    How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?    46

Annex 1: Procedural information    48

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation    55

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?    72

Annex 4: Analytical methods    75

Annex 5: The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Framework    97

Annex 6: Existing Policies, Legislation and Standards affecting External Power Supplies    102

Annex 7: Evaluation of Ecodesign Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 requirements for external power supplies    109

Annex 8: Sensitivity analyses    115

Annex 9: Overview on EPS manufacturers    117

Annex 10: Glossary    119

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 278/2009 1 on the ecodesign requirements for External Power Supplies (EPS).

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. They are central to making Europe more energy efficient, contributing in particular to the ‘Energy Union Framework Strategy’ 2 , and to the priority of a ‘Deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base’ 3 . 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 EU-wide 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 4 .

The average household will invest in more expensive and efficient products, but in return saves about € 500 annually on its energy bills by 2020. Although the cost for industry, service and wholesale and retail sectors will increase, it will result in € 55 billion per year of extra revenue by 2020.

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.

External power supplies (EPSs) have been subject to EU ecodesign requirements on minimum energy efficiency from 2009. Since then, the energy consumption and related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by products using EPSs have decreased with more than 13% (equivalent to over 10 TWh/year energy savings generated by improved EPSs only) compared to business as usual (BAU), the administrative burden has been modest, and the stakeholders have been positive regarding the impact of this instrument on the market 5 .

1.2.Legal framework

In the EU, the Ecodesign Framework Directive 6 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 7 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 energy label is recognised and used by 85% of Europeans 8 .

The legislative framework builds upon the combined effect of the two aforementioned pieces of legislation. See Figure 1 for a visualisation of this effect. 

Figure 1 Synergetic effect Ecodesign and energy labelling

The Ecodesign framework Directive and the Energy Labelling framework Regulation are implemented through product-specific implementing and delegated Regulations. Pursuant to Article 15.2 of the Ecodesign Framework Directive, the energy-related products that are covered must:

(I)represent a significant volume of sales (more than 200,000 units a year);

(II)have a significant environmental impact within the EU, and

(III) represent a significant energy improvement potential without increasing the cost excessively.

Pursuant to Article 17 of the Ecodesign Framework Directive, the industry can present voluntary agreements or other self-regulation measures as an alternative to the mandatory ecodesign requirements. If certain criteria are met, the Commission formally recognises these voluntary agreements 9 . The benefits are a quicker and more cost-effective implementation, which can be more flexible and easier to adapt to technological developments and market sensitivities.

For more details about the legal framework, including a full list ecodesign and energy labelling measures, see Annex 5. 

1.2.1.Current regulation for External Power Supplies

EPSs are devices used to supply electricity to, and to charge built-in batteries of, electronic and electric devices ("primary load products") such as laptops, mobile phones, tablets and electric shavers 10 . For other products without built-in batteries, they serve as the main continuous source of power – for example standalone loudspeakers or computer network equipment such as modems and routers. The use of such products spans both domestic and office settings.

An EPS transforms the voltage supplied by an electric socket normally at 230 V to a lower voltage level suitable to the primary load product – often between 5 V and 20 V. An EPS also often rectifies the Alternating Current (AC) from the electric socket to Direct Current (DC) typically used for portable electric and most electronic products. It may also contain intelligent electronics to enable fast charging cycles and to avoid detrimental over-charging of built-in batteries. Figure 2 shows examples of typical EPS types.

Figure 2 Pictures of typical EPS types.

Source: EPS manufacturers

To note that the multiple voltage output EPS depicted above is not in the scope of the current Ecodesign Regulation because it converts 230 V to more than one voltage level simultaneously.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 11  (hereinafter referred to as the Ecodesign Regulation) establishing minimum efficiency requirements for external power supplies was adopted on 6 April 2009. Its scope 12 covers EPSs that meet all of the following criteria:

·converts the mains power source into lower voltage (which could be DC or AC);

·only converts to one voltage level at a time (e.g. 5 V);

·it is intended to be used with a separate device (i.e. the “primary load”) but it is contained in a separate physical enclosure;

·it is connected to the device with an electrical cable or similar wired connection;

·supplies power that does not exceed 250 W; and

·it is intended to be used with electrical and electronic household and office equipment (e.g. the products in scope of the Standby Regulation 13 ).

The requirements in the Regulation focus on power consumption at no-load condition (i.e. when no primary load is connected to the EPS) and on the EPS' average active efficiency (i.e. power conversion efficiency when the EPS supplies power to a primary load product).

No energy labelling regulation was adopted for EPSs due to the reasons explained in Section 5.3.2.

With regard to the primary load products, only few of them are covered by specific ecodesign regulations: laptops, televisions and portable vacuum cleaners with batteries 14 . In these cases, having more efficient EPSs helps the compliance of the main load product under its specific regulation, as the EPS efficiency is additional to that of the main product. In cases where the main products are not regulated, a better EPS efficiency is a gain in itself. Additionally, the no-load requirement for EPSs is essential for reducing energy consumption when these are plugged in but no main product is connected. This requirement is not related to the product-specific regulation for the main load products.

The EU has also a voluntary scheme, the Code of Conduct for EPS (CoC) 15 , which was prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre following the discussions and decisions of an ad-hoc working group composed by independent experts, Member States representatives and representatives of industry. The CoC aims to promote and bring recognition to the top performing EPSs on the EU market. Its most recent requirements, which took effect in January 2016, are more stringent than any regulation in force in the main markets worldwide. For more details see Annex 6. A visual comparison with national regulations is provided in Section 2.1.1.

1.2.2.EU Ecolabelling Regulation

The EU Ecolabelling Regulation (Regulation (EC) 66/2010 16 ) 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 (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 3: The EU Ecolabel

However, EPSs are not covered by any measures under the Ecolabelling Regulation.

An overview of existing policies, legislations and standards affecting EPSs in the EU and outside is given in Annex 6.

1.3.Legal context of the reviews

Article 7 of the Ecodesign Regulation for EPSs requires the Commission to review it in the light of technological progress no later than four years after its entry into force and to present the results to the Consultation Forum. A review study 17 focusing on a technical and environmental analysis has been carried out to assess the potential for updating the Ecodesign Regulation.

Moreover, the Ecodesign working plan 2016-2019 18  also includes this review.

1.4.Political Context

Several new policy initiatives indicate that ecodesign and energy labelling policies are relevant in a broader political context. The main ones are the Energy Union Framework Strategy, which calls for a sustainable, low-carbon and climate-friendly economy, the Paris Agreement 19 , which calls for a renewed effort in carbon emission abatement, the Gothenburg Protocol 20 , which aims at controlling air pollution, the Circular Economy Initiative 21 , which amongst others stresses the need to include reparability, recyclability and durability in ecodesign, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) 22 , aiming at cost-effective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and is indirectly affected by the energy consumption of the products in the scope of ecodesign and energy labelling policies, and the Energy Security Strategy 23 , 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 cost effective energy savings can still be achieved for the EPS product group. By way of illustration, further electricity savings of over 4 TWh could be secured in a cost-effective way. This would be additional to the savings brought by the existing ecodesign requirements on EPS (initially estimated at 9 TWh per year by 2020, revised to 10 TWh according to the evaluation of the current Regulation, see Annex 7).

Other policies/political imperatives:

Several other policies and political priorities require the product-specific reviews 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.

2.Problem definition

2.1.What are the problems?

2.1.1.Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements

The following diagram summarises the first identified problem, its drivers and its consequences, as explained in the next sections.

Figure 4 Problem 1, its drivers and consequences

The problem: The current ecodesign requirements for EPS no longer capture cost-effective energy savings. On the one hand, due to technological developments, the performance of the EPSs sold on the market has improved since the Ecodesign regulation came into force. On the other hand, standards in other parts of the world have become more stringent, showing that the optimal requirements and life cycle costs have shifted. The EU is now lagging behind and there is a risk that EPSs that are less efficient than the ones sold on other markets will be placed on the EU market. These findings are supported by the results of the evaluation (see Annex 7, Section 1 – Relevance).

Because of the outdated requirements, in combination with an outdated scope (see Problem 2), the EU as a whole might forego annual energy savings of about 4.3 TWh by 2030 (see Section 6).

Apart from reinforcing the requirements, additional consideration could be given to how are calculated the parameters for setting these requirements. The key metrics used for measuring the EPS energy performance are: the average active efficiency (i.e. the efficiency of converting from the mains voltage to the voltage and current – AC or DC - suitable for the primary load product), and the no-load condition power consumption (i.e. the energy consumed by the EPS when is plugged in, but its output is not connected to any primary load). The average active efficiency is calculated as the average of efficiencies at four different load levels (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). Low load levels under 25% were not considered, as in the past not many products spent time at these levels. However, due to improvements in electronics that are now able to scale down consumption when not intensively used, it might be relevant to consider a requirement for 10% load. An EPS providing high efficiency at low load levels does not currently receive any reward, because it does not contribute to the average active efficiency. It is however important to note that the current calculation method is used not only in the EU, but at the international level too.

The evaluation of the current Regulation (see Annex 7) shows that ecodesign requirements on EPSs remain highly relevant for the internal market and are estimated to bring, in a cost-effective way, annual energy savings of approximately 10 TWh by 2020. This exceeds the initial expectations of 9 TWh, which were estimated in 2009 when the Regulation was first adopted. The higher savings estimated now are largely due to a higher EPS stock in the latest years than the stock estimated back in 2009. The increasing use of these products, together with the potential to secure further energy savings, is another reason to update the Regulation by strengthening its requirements.

The drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Technological development

Technology for EPS keeps evolving and today, 8 years after entry into force of the current Regulation, the Ecodesign requirements are no longer sufficiently challenging.

Before the current regulation took effect, a typical EPS delivering 60 W output (suitable for e.g. a notebook computer) would have an active efficiency of 84% or lower and a no-load power consumption of 0.75 W or higher. The same EPS today 24 has an active efficiency of at least 87% and a no-load power consumption of maximum 0.5 W, largely due to the effect of the current Ecodesign Regulation. The best performing EPSs in this output range have active efficiency of 96% and no-load consumption of 0.01 W (see details in Table 1 and Table 2 ). The main technological development that enabled this improvement in efficiency was the move to EPS with more electronics in the conversion circuitry (so-called switch mode EPSs), next to the use of better performing electronics with fewer losses.

Furthermore, since the indicative benchmarks for Best Available Technology (“BAT”) were established in Regulation 278/2009, a massive reduction in BAT no-load power consumption has been achieved, as presented in Table 1 .

Table 1 BAT no-load condition power consumption 25  

A similar trend can be observed with the average active efficiency, see Table 2 .

Table 2 BAT average active efficiency25

Approximately 31% of the EPSs available on the international market 26 can already achieve no-load levels in line with Tier 2 of the EU CoC (between 0.075 and 0.150 W), and approximately 62% of EPSs available on the international market (or 27% of models) can already achieve the corresponding efficiency levels of the CoC.

Driver 2: Evolving regulations in other countries

Since 2005 the main markets outside the EU have implemented mandatory efficiency requirements for EPSs. They follow a general trend of becoming increasingly stringent in time.

By way of illustration, Figure 5 shows a comparison of the level of requirements in the main jurisdictions (i.e. US, China, Australia and EU) and their year of adoption 27 (on the x-axis). The y-axis shows the level of stringency according to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies Version 3.0 28 , where Roman numerals indicate increasing stringency levels. For comparison, Tier 2 of the EU Code of Conduct ("EU CoC T2") was added on top. The CoC is a voluntary EU scheme, which is more stringent than Level VI of the International Marking Protocol. More details on the various regulations and standards applicable to EPSs are available in Annex 6.

Figure 5 EPS minimum energy efficiency legislation in US, China, Australia and EU.

Source: Figure from Viegand Maagøe based on above mentioned legislations and initiatives, 2018

The US Department of Energy’s (US DOE) latest requirements, which entered into force in the United States in 2016, are significantly more stringent than the current Ecodesign requirements in the EU.

Table 3 presents a numerical summary of the most ambitious legal requirements worldwide i.e. the ones IN the US and the EU. The CoC Tier 2 was added for comparison.

Table 3 Summary of minimum average active efficiency and no-load power consumption limits according to different EPS requirements in the EU and the US.

*Note: The efficiencies and no-load power consumption are illustrative examples calculated considering several base cases, the actual requirements will depend on the power output of the product.

In summary, the current EU ecodesign requirements are roughly equivalent to Level V international marking, which is now obsolete in the US where it was replaced by Level VI in 2016.

Such differences in regulatory requirements have far-reaching consequences on a global market such as the one for EPSs. This market is characterised by the relatively small number of big suppliers (that are dominating the market and producing in large quantities), and by the demand-side characteristics (where only few or no technical modifications are needed for an EPS to be adapted on various markets). Although the advances in the US will naturally bring some of these better products to the EU, poorer performing EPSs (i.e. equivalent to Level V) will continue to be produced by global manufacturers and are likely to be sold in the EU where they continue to comply with the current Regulation. Any lower purchasing cost for the EPS will likely not be passed to the customers, as EPSs are in most cases sold together with main load products that determine the overall selling price (additional details on this aspect are explained also in the following driver section). As consequence the EU consumers, companies etc. will not purchase the most economic EPSs (from a life cycle cost perspective).

Driver 3: Low visibility and split incentives

EPSs are usually an accessory product, which means they are less visible at the point of sale. A typical consumer will base their purchase decision on the primary load product (e.g. mobile phone or laptop) rather than on the accompanying power supply. Consumers usually do not perceive the energy performance of the EPS as relevant, and the performance information is also not visible on e.g. retailer websites. This makes it easier for lower performance EPSs that are banned from other markets (e.g. US) to enter the EU.

Since there is no specific consumer demand for more efficient EPSs, manufacturers are not incentivised to produce EPSs that out-perform the current ecodesign requirements. Split incentives (between the manufacturers of the primary load products and the users) are a typical problem driver for EPSs. In this case, the manufacturers of primary load products have little interest in reducing the operating (i.e. energy) costs of the EPSs bundled with their products, even if the price of a more efficient EPS would be as little as 1.6 % of the final product price 29 . As the operating costs are paid for by the user and the costs of improved performance would be paid for by the manufacturer, the latter does not receive any reward or acknowledgment for implementing more costly and innovative energy-efficient technologies. The existence of such split incentives is commonly referred to in the economic literature 30 as the principal-agent problem.

 Driver 4: Evolving usage patterns

The current regulation does not address all of today’s usage patterns, as they evolved due to technological development of the primary load products. Nowadays, many devices (such as networked devices of which approximately 150 million units are sold annually in the EU, as estimated by the current impact assessment) have extended periods when they run at lower loads (around 10% of the rated power). This is because the devices are getting better at scaling the power draw proportionally to the performance. For these lower load levels, where the losses are typically higher (as a percentage of load), the Regulation does not set any requirements regarding minimum efficiency or information disclosure.

For instance, if a device works at full performance level, the EPS power load can be 80-90%, while if the device (such as a home Wi-Fi internet connection) is idling or at the end of a charging cycle, the EPS load may fall to 5-15 %. As such, this is a positive development because the devices are able to scale their consumption and use less energy when used for lighter tasks. However, at these low load levels the EPS losses are typically high, because EPSs are optimised for the range of 30-80% load levels, where the Regulation sets minimum efficiency requirements.

As shown in Figure 6 , the possible variation across the low load range is considerable between an EPS with high efficiency at low load levels and one with poor efficiency at low load levels.

Figure 6 Low load efficiency variation for two EPS at 230V 31

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013

Both EPSs have high average active efficiency (89.7% and 87.5% respectively) and meet the Regulation’s minimum efficiency requirements, but the efficiencies below 25% are widely different. At 10% load, the better performing EPS is 88% efficient, while the other is only 70% efficient. If the device spends a significant amount of time at low loads, higher energy consumption can be expected with an EPS that performs poorly at low load levels.

The problem will increase in future due to many more appliances being always on and in standby mode at lower power levels, including networked devices in smart homes (e.g. IoT - Internet of Things), which are increasingly gaining popularity 32 .

2.1.2.Problem 2: Outdated scope

The following diagram summarises the second problem identified, its drivers and its consequences, as explained in the next sections.

Figure 7 Problem 2, its drivers and consequences

The problem: The current scope of ecodesign requirements does not cover multiple voltage output EPSs, which are sold in increasing numbers.

Multiple voltage output EPS is an EPS that can simultaneously deliver several voltage outputs, allowing different devices that require different voltages to be simultaneously charged or supplied with power. See Figure 8 for an example of a multiple voltage output EPS that can charge a notebook computer (at about 20 V) and a mobile phone (at 5 V) at the same time. This new trend of universal chargers is becoming increasingly prevalent. Additionally, some appliances need to be supplied with several voltage levels at the same time. For example, up until 2013-2014, the majority of stationary game consoles used multiple voltage output EPSs. Although the newer models of game consoles no longer use these types of EPS, the replacement sales can still occur.

Figure 8 Example of multiple a voltage output EPS (universal charger) for notebooks and mobile phones

Source: www.finsix.com (section ‘Design’)

Not regulating the multiple voltage output EPSs would lead to additional electricity cost for the consumers in the range of 9 – 13 € per unit over its lifetime due to the EPS’ suboptimal efficiency. This is equivalent to an additional energy costs of ca. 104 million € for the 11 million units expected to be sold annually in the EU by 2030 (see details in Section 6).

These increasingly popular EPSs are not in the scope of the current EU Regulation, but are now covered by the US DOE requirements. As a result, European consumers using this new type of EPS miss out on energy and financial savings as the multiple voltage output EPSs are generally less efficient than a regular EPS due to the use of more electronics. Moreover, because no requirements apply in the EU, manufacturers have an incentive to market them. For instance, by adding a 5 V secondary output to a regular notebook EPS, the new EPS does no longer need to comply with any Ecodesign requirements. Thus, the multiple voltage output EPSs have an unfair advantage on the market over the EPSs already covered by the Regulation.

These findings are supported by the results of the evaluation (see Annex 7, Section 1 – Relevance).The drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Technological development

The progress of technology allowed EPSs to become smaller, more compact and thus more easily incorporate multiple outputs in a lower volume and weight. An EPS component supplier estimated that the global market for multiple voltage output EPS would be around 20 million per year by 2019. The size of this market in the EU is estimated by the stock model of this impact assessment at around 4 million per year today and is expected to increase to 11 million by 2030 without regulation.

Moreover, the newer USB Power Delivery (USB PD) specification allows for increasingly use of so-called USB Type-C charging connectors for notebook computers, mobiles, tablets and other electronic equipment (for more details on these technologies see Annex 6). EPSs with USB Type-C connectors enable charging with variable power outputs (up to 100 W) and variable voltage levels (5-20 V). This is a big step forward, as the older EPSs only provide fixed output voltage levels and related powers. The Type-C brings also compatibility, as many new primary load products are adopting the standard. This allows adding, for example, an USB Type-C output to a regular notebook EPS. Via the USB Type-C connector a wide range of products could be charged (typical example being smartphones or tablets) at the same time as charging the laptop. As evidence of the increasing popularity of products with USB Type-C connectors, their number has increased globally from nearly zero to more than 1 billion in 2017 and is expected to grow to 5 billion in 2021 33 .

Driver 2: Evolving regulations in other countries

The fact that the latest US requirements regulate these EPSs and the EU does not could result in the EU market being flooded with products having older designs and lower efficiencies. International data from 2018 34 suggests there are 80% of multiple voltage output EPSs on the market that are not yet compliant with the US DOE Level VI requirement. It should be noted here that the DOE acknowledges that these EPSs are less efficient than the regular ones and sets more lenient requirements.

This impact assessment estimates that by 2030 the market share of multiple voltage output EPS would increase to 11 million units annually sold. Not complying with the EPS regulation would save the manufacturers 0.5 – 0.6 € per unit, i.e. a saving of 6.6 million €, which would be an incentive for not taking action on improving EPS performance.

2.1.3.Problem 3: Lack of readily available information

The following diagram summarises the third problem identified, its drivers and its consequences, as explained in the next sections.

Figure 9 Problem 3, its drivers and consequences

The problem: Little information on EPSs and their performance is readily available. This affects the market surveillance, users, and the wider public.

Although the EPS Regulation has been in place since 2009, it has been difficult to find publicly available information on freely accessible websites, regarding the no-load consumption and average active efficiency of EPSs.

Today, all but one of the newer Ecodesign Regulations 35 in force require manufacturers and/or importers to make available relevant information on products performance on publicly accessible websites and, in many cases the user manuals. The aim is to increase the transparency and awareness of the energy efficiency of various products and their different consumption modes. This information can be used by consumer organisations, energy authorities, informed consumers etc. for developing analyses, selecting the most efficient devices and using them in the best ways. It also provides an incentive for manufacturers not just simply to comply with the requirements, but to design products with higher efficiencies that would stand out among other similar devices.

One of the most cost-effective market surveillance instruments is to carry out a screening of the information on publicly accessible websites. This allows the Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs) to compare a large number of products within a short time and select suitable candidates for further detailed inspection or testing. Without a regulatory instrument that requires this information to be available on publicly available websites, MSAs can only obtain the necessary information on a product-by-product basis, by requesting technical documentations from individual producers. This approach hinders a swift and efficient market surveillance of the EPS market.

Without an alignment of the EPS Regulation with the other (more recent) Ecodesign Regulations, the process to access the necessary information on EPS energy efficiency and power consumption will remain cumbersome.

The drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Low visibility and split incentives

The low visibility of these products (also described in the driver of problem 1) is also reflected in the lack of information for consumers about EPS efficiency and power consumption. This creates a vicious circle, where the lack of information on public websites and the low visibility of EPS mutually enhance each other and lead to poor consumer awareness and lost energy savings.

Driver 2: Current regulatory approach

The EPS Regulation was one of the first few Ecodesign Regulations ever adopted in the EU. Therefore, the Regulation was already in place when the provision of information became a common requirement for all Ecodesign Regulations. The Ecodesign Framework Directive lays down the basis for having information requirements (i.e. specific data and information on the product's performance relevant for consumers, organisations and MSAs to be published on web sites and added in the user manuals).

2.1.4.Problem 4: Missed opportunities for contributing to circular economy objectives

The following diagram summarises the fourth identified problem, its drivers and its consequences, as explained in the next sections.

Figure 10 Problem 4, its drivers and consequences

The problem: Missed opportunities for EPSs to be more efficient in the use of materials and to contribute better to circular economy objectives. This affects the users and the environment.

The need to examine options for better supporting circular economy objectives was articulated by stakeholders, although not related to a specific failure on the market. Thus, no specific information was available on the magnitude of the problem.

Based on the overarching objective of reducing consumption of materials, several specific problems were perceived:

-lack of compatibility among EPSs;

-potential over-use of materials resulting in bigger and heavier EPSs than needed;

-the impossibility of detaching cables for some EPS models, therefore a damaged cable results in discarding the whole EPS; and

-lack of information regarding disassembly and recycling.

Ensuring compatibility among different EPSs, notably the ones used for mobile devices, could reduce the need for them to be sold bundled with products and allow consumers to buy a single EPS for use with e.g. tablet and smartphone. Such an approach could decrease the number of products sold, but poses some technical challenges (see Section 5.3.4).

Information on disassembly and recycling, as well as a potential requirement to limit the weight of EPSs, could help reducing their environmental impact.

The drivers of the problem:

Driver 1: Specific technological solutions developed or adopted by manufacturers

Manufacturers of primary load products use various (sometimes proprietary) technologies for the connectors that attach to the EPS supply cords. Although a degree of interchangeability is ensured by the use of the USB connector, other solutions exist on the market.

Driver 2: Sales model that bundles the EPSs with the primary load products

As a primary load product that should be supplied with an EPS cannot function without the latter, the current practice is to supply the two together, as a single package. The unavailability on the market of a ‘universal charger’ that would be compatible with many different primary load products closes a vicious circle where the problem and the driver mutually affect each other.

2.2.Who is affected by the problems?

2.2.1.Consumers 

Technological progress and international developments have resulted in more energy efficient EPSs becoming available at lower costs. Figure 11 below shows that:

·No-load condition power consumption: Approximately 59% of the EPSs available on the international market can already achieve no-load consumption at the US DOE level (between 0.1 and 0.3 W), while 36% can achieve no-load levels in line with Tier 2 of the EU CoC (between 0.75 and 0.150 W).

·Average active efficiency: Approximately 90% of the EPSs available on the international market (equivalent to 82% of models) can achieve US DOE efficiency level, while approximately 62% (equivalent to 27% of models) can achieve efficiency levels in line with Tier 2 of the EU CoC.

The figure plots the models available on the market, while further calculations were made to obtain figures approximating the total sales.

Figure 11 also shows that improved active efficiency and no-load consumption are now achievable over a wide range of EPS output powers and price levels.

Figure 11 Price to power chart for EPS available for retail purchase internationally in 2018

Source: data from Digi-key, retrieved 14/02/2018

However, in many instances consumers of products using EPSs are not benefitting from this as products in the EU market are not obliged to incorporate these better performing EPSs. This results in missed energy and monetary savings at the end-user level.

Consumers may also be buying more EPSs than needed, as they are sold bundled with primary load products.

2.2.2.EU, Member States and MSAs 

For EU and Member State policy makers, less effective and efficient ecodesign regulations means less contribution from EPSs to achieving policy goals regarding single market, energy efficiency, energy security of supply, and climate change.

Enhancing information availability on websites via a regulatory instrument can improve the productivity of the MSAs, making the market surveillance of EPSs more cost-effective. Publicly available information facilitates the work of policy makers and researchers (for gathering evidence) and raises the awareness of consumers regarding the EPS performance.

2.2.3.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 ecodesign regulations contribute to achieving goals set in the Paris Agreement and they help achieve the 2030 EU climate and energy objectives.

2.3.How will the problems evolve?

2.3.1.Slow uptake of more efficient EPS will lead to increased missed energy savings

EPSs are used in a wide variety of household and office equipment. The stock model developed for this impact assessment estimated that in 2015 around 490 million EPS units were sold in the EU, which means that, on average, 9 out of 10 EU citizens bought one the same year. Due to the increasing consumer demand on electronic and electrical equipment, it is estimated that by 2030 around 510 million EPS will be sold annually in the EU.

As an example, Figure 12 below shows the historical and anticipated (in a BAU scenario, where the current Regulation remains unchanged) future efficiency distribution of EPSs with output power of 12-15 W. These are used for electronic products such as network equipment, set-top boxes and loudspeakers. The red bars show the percentage of EPSs that remain at the minimum efficiency levels, and therefore could be improved further. The other colours show the projected evolution of more efficient EPSs driven by compliance with US DOE and EU CoC requirements, or even overpassing all of those. Similar efficiency distributions of EPSs for other primary products can be found in Annex 4. There has been slightly more market uptake of more efficient EPSs up until 2013 as a result of the Ecodesign requirements. From 2016, the US has adopted more advanced requirements than in the EU, and this left room for redirecting to the European market EPSs that became non-compliant in the US. Therefore, the uptake of more efficient EPS is expected to stagnate after 2016.

Figure 12 Efficiency distribution of EPS for network equipment, set-top boxes and loudspeakers etc. in Business As Usual scenario without further EU intervention. ERP EFF represents current ecodesign level, Half BAT represents the efficiency half way between current BAT and CoC Tier 2 level.

Source: Based on 2015 NRCAN database and 2018 data from https://www.digikey.com/ and calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Every user of products with an EPS (in industry, services and households) will be impacted by the lost energy and monetary savings resulting from the use of less efficient EPSs.

2.3.2. Market failure due to outdated regulation

Without requirements adapted to technological progress and regulatory evolutions on other markets (such as US), the EU could become a dumping ground for the less efficient EPSs that cannot be sold any longer in other markets.

Outdated requirements would negatively affect EPS suppliers that are selling more efficient (and slightly more expensive) products by decreasing their competitiveness on the European market. It would also result in lower industry revenues, as the highly competitive market for electronics will not facilitate the bundling of primary products with more efficient EPSs. Ultimately, consumers will not benefit from slightly cheaper and more energy consuming products because their overall life cycle cost, including the energy consumption, will be higher.

3.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 (TEU) 36 and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 37  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 includes a built-in proportionality and significance test. 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 represent 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:

oan 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 6.6.1).

During the review process (Review study 2013, see Annex2), it was established that EPSs fulfil the above-mentioned eligibility criteria.

The option of self-regulation has been considered. However, no industry proposal that would meet the requirements (inter alia minimum 80% market coverage) was put forward (see Section 5.3.1 for more details). In short, during the consultations none of the MSs or any other stakeholder suggested any other option than setting ecodesign requirements on minimum energy efficiency at EU level.

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 them 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 of requirements to be met before placing an appliance on the market and in terms of the information supplied to customers 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.

In the particular case of EPSs, the Regulation should be updated to: (i) enable further cost-effective energy savings for end users, (ii) expand the scope by including a new type of EPS present on the market and closing a potential regulatory loophole, and (iii) improve the information provided to the users and other stakeholders with regard to the performance of EPSs.

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

There is clear added value in requiring minimum energy efficiency levels 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. Before the ecodesign and energy label measures were implemented, this was in fact the case for many products. 

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

The general objectives of a revised regulation on EPS are:

1.Facilitate the free circulation of efficient EPSs within the EU internal market ;

2.Promotes competitiveness of the EU industry manufacturing products using EPSs and the EU EPS manufacturers through the creation or expansion of the EU internal market for more sustainable products;

3.Promotes the energy efficiency of EPSs as a contribution to the Commission’s proposal to reduce energy consumption by at least 30% and to the EU’s objective to reduce domestic greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by 40% by 2030; implement the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle established in the Commission Communication on Energy Union Framework Strategy: and

4.Increase the energy security in the EU and reduce energy dependency through a decrease in energy consumption of EPSs.

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 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 intended to correct the identified problems (see Section 2). These objectives aim to:

1.Update the energy efficiency requirements in line with the technological developments and the international initiatives, so that they continue to effectively support a functioning internal market, ensure further energy savings and reduce environmental impacts;

2.Expand the scope to close potential loopholes and facilitate a level playing field, thereby promoting competitiveness of the EU industry that manufactures EPSs or products using EPSs;

3.Enhance transparency regarding EPS energy efficiency, raise their profile and improve consistency with other Ecodesign Regulations, thereby raising awareness of the policy framework update under objectives 1 and 2 with consumers and improving enforcement by Member States.

These objectives will drive investments and innovations in a sustainable manner, increase monetary savings for the end-users, and contribute to the objectives of the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Paris Agreement.

5.What are the available policy options?

The procedure for identifying policy options stems from the Better Regulation Toolbox 38 . The specific measures in the policy options are the result of a combination of initiatives mentioned in the Review study 2013, the evaluation in Annex 7, and inspiration taken from the Ecodesign Framework Directive. They aim to address the problems identified in Section 2 and achieving the policy objectives defined in Section 4.

The policy options considered are listed in Table 4 (with detailed description in the next sections). The options comprise a number of measures that were identified as (technically) feasible in the discussions with stakeholders (their views in relation to each option are provided). They are fully examined in section 6 with regard to their projected impacts. Measures that were considered not feasible or impractical at this stage, based on technical analysis and the same discussions with stakeholders, are presented in section 5.3 ‘Discarded options’ together with the reasoning for doing so.

Table 4 Available policy options

The figure below summarises the intervention logic for the envisaged measures.

Figure 13: Link between the drivers, problems, objectives and the measures proposed in support of policy options

It should be noted here that no measure is proposed at this stage for addressing material efficiency. The full reasoning (based on technical analyses and consultations with stakeholders) is presented in Section 5.3.4.

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

This option implies that the current Ecodesign and all other relevant EU-level policies and measures are assumed to continue. This option is retained as the baseline – “Business as usual” (BAU) scenario.

It is worth noting that the current BAU scenario, which is the basis for evaluating the proposed policy options, is different from the BAU 0 scenario from 2009 39 before any regulation on EPS was in place. The distinction between the BAU and the previous one (BAU 0) is instrumental in evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the current Regulation (see details in Annex 7).

In the baseline scenario, the current ecodesign regulation has been able to transform the market towards more efficient products for all EPSs in scope (see evaluation of current Regulation in Annex 7). However, the effect of the regulation slows down after end of 2012, a year after the final Tier came into force. From then on, the efficiency for all EPSs in scope is assumed to improve autonomously but very slowly beyond the existing minimum requirements due to suboptimal market development and the potential risk of EPSs banned in the US entering the EU market. The US DOE requirements increase the probability of staying at the current efficiency level in EU – as opposed to enhancing efficiency in an autonomous manner - when manufacturers continue to sell in the EU EPSs which remain compliant here, but that cannot be sold anymore in the US.

This scenario implies no requirements for multiple voltage output EPS, no information requirement for efficiency at 10% loading, and no general information requirement on EPS performance.

The requirement in the EU ETS to reduce emissions from amongst other electricity production will impact EPS in the PO1 - BAU. Indeed, if the energy consumption of EPSs is not reduced, the indirect emissions (i.e. from electricity consumption) relative to the allowed emissions will increase. In general, this means that more EU ETS emissions allowances will have to be bought and that the price of electricity could slightly increase.

5.2.Description of the policy options

5.2.1.Ecodesign legislative amendments that are common for all policy options (PO2 – PO4)

The three measures described in this section are applicable to policy options PO2, PO3 and PO4. They apply in the same conditions in all options and are additional to the specific measures put forward in each policy option with regard to reinforced ecodesign requirements. The three common measures were duly analysed, discussed with stakeholders and broadly agreed upon. Therefore they are presented as a ‘horizontal’ component in all three policy options.

(I)Extension of scope

The extension of scope means including multiple voltage output EPSs, similar to the US DOE requirements.

The requirements on active efficiency and the no-load consumption for multiple voltage output EPSs (see requirements in Table 5 and Table 6 , as included in PO2) are less strict than the similar requirements for the ‘regular’ single voltage output EPS (see requirements in Table 8 and Table 9 ). This is necessary because there are more electronic components in multiple voltage output EPSs that bring additional losses. Manufacturers already deliver compliant products to the US market, and it would therefore not be an issue for them to supply also the EU market.

Table 5 Requirements on maximal no-load power consumption for multiple voltage output EPS

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

Table 6 Requirements on minimal average active efficiency for multiple voltage output EPS

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

This extension would require specifying a test method for multiple voltage EPS. Such a method already exists in the United States 40 , prepared by the DOE. This test method includes a description of how to load the individual connections at different voltage levels for achieving the loading conditions required by the regulation in order to measure the efficiency.

Stakeholder views: During the stakeholder consultations for the Review Study 2013 and impact assessment procedure the MSs and NGOs (such as ECOS and NRDC) expressed support for the scope extension. Industry stakeholders e.g. DIGITALEUROPE also broadly accepted this proposal.

(II)Information requirement on 10% loading efficiency

A requirement regarding the provision of information on EPS efficiency at 10% load is proposed at this stage. The requirement would take effect at the same time as Tier 1 efficiency requirements (see PO2 to PO4 below).

A measurement of efficiency at 10% load can be implemented at marginal extra test cost by increasing the load conditions for measurements from five points (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% loading) to six points (one additional point at 10% loading). No additional equipment is required, and overall testing time would increase by no more than 10 minutes according to testing experts. EPSs redesigned for compliance with the new efficiency requirements should in any case be retested and the additional measurement for the 10% load point would add little additional test burden.

Stakeholder views: This measure was largely supported by stakeholders when discussed at the Consultation Forum meeting held on 18 April 2013. Industry stakeholders represented by DIGITALEUROPE have accepted the proposal for an information requirement, if enough transition time is allowed. MSs also supported this requirement. However, NGOs, such as ECOS and ANEC/BEUC, are asking for a specific requirement on minimum efficiency at 10% loading. Nonetheless, they also agree that having an information requirement for data collection purpose would be useful and would facilitate analysing a hard requirement in the next revision of the Regulation.

(III) Requirement for making information on EPS performance available on publicly accessible websites and in user manuals

This requirement establishes the obligation of manufacturers and/or importers to make available relevant information including EPS efficiency and no-load consumption. This information is already provided by manufacturers in the technical documentations, but these are currently only available to a limited audience e.g. MSA. Including an information requirement will therefore not create additional administrative burden. Additionally, it will ensure consistency with the other Ecodesign Regulations.

Stakeholder views: No stakeholder expressed any particular concerns about this requirement.

5.2.2. Policy Option 2 - Global alignment

The PO2 reflects proposals from industry stakeholders for a single tier aligned with US DOE requirements (see requirements in  Table 8 and Table 9 ) to avoid variations in EPS design between the EU and US markets.

This option has the following characteristics (presented in Table 7 ) and requirements (presented in Table 8 and Table 9):

Table 7 PO2 implementation timeline

Table 8 Requirements on maximal no-load power consumption for EPS - Tier 1

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

Table 9 Requirements on minimal average active efficiency for EPS - Tier 1

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

Increasing the energy efficiency requirements will remove or shift the efficiency of 70% of the products on the market in 2020 compared to a BAU scenario (see Annex 4). This is similar to the effect that the current Ecodesign Regulation had on the market when it was first adopted in 2009 (for more information see Annex 7).

Stakeholder views: The industry stakeholders 41 expressed support for this policy option, as globally harmonised requirements will bring economies of scale. 

5.2.3. Policy Option 3 - Ambitious EU measure

This policy option includes the same first tier as in PO2, but it adds a second tier which is aligned with the EU CoC Version 5 Tier 2. The EU Code of Conduct was chosen as the basis for this second and more ambitious tier because the CoC is a result of extensive consultations (typically bi-annual meetings) and analyses over many years. This was done with an ad-hoc working group composed of independent experts, Member States and industry representatives covering EPS, component and end-product manufacturers, and large purchasers of end-products such as telecommunication providers. The CoC was signed to date by four large companies 42 . The EU Code of Conduct was supported as a good basis for tightening requirements at the Consultation Forum on 18 April 2013. This option is based on the proposal subsequently presented to the Consultation Forum on 29 April 2015, albeit with revised timescales for implementation.

This option has the following characteristics (presented in Table 10 ), and Tier 2 requirements (presented in Table 11 and Table 12 ). The Tier 1 requirements are presented in Table 8 and Table 9 above.

Table 10 PO3 implementation timeline

Table 11 Requirements on maximal no-load power consumption for EPS - Tier 2

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

Table 12 Requirements on minimal average active efficiency for EPS - Tier 2

Source: Draft working document for EPS Regulation 2015

*The second tier does not bring any changes in the requirements for multiple voltage output EPS

The increase of the energy efficiency requirements will remove or shift the efficiency of 80 % of the products on the market in 2020 compared to a BAU scenario (see Annex 4).

Stakeholder views: NGOs such as ECOS and MSs have supported the two-tier approach (although some MS such as Germany and Italy asked for a thorough assessment, during the impact assessment phase, of the benefits of having a second tier). Industry stakeholders have strongly opposed the two tiers approach.

5.2.4.Policy Option 4 - Very ambitious EU measure

Environmental and consumers NGOs initially requested even more ambitious requirements, such as higher active efficiency requirements in Tier 2 or adding an ambitious third tier while keeping Tier 2 as described in PO3. The option of having a third tier was however discarded after further consultation with stakeholders.

Building on the idea of supporting a very ambitious approach, PO4 includes the same first tier of minimum energy efficiency requirements as PO2 (see requirements in Table 8 and Table 9 ), but includes a Tier 2 that is more ambitious than the one in PO3. This would provide higher energy savings that should balance better the associated additional costs for manufacturers in terms of design changes. The timing of the second tier is half a year later than that proposed in PO3 to allow the higher ambition level to be achieved at reasonable cost. This policy option has the characteristics presented in Table 13 , and Tier 2 requirements in Table 14 and Table 15 . The proposed requirements 43 are calculated as the midpoint between the CoC Tier 2 and BAT.

Table 13 PO4 implementation timeline

Table 14 Requirements on maximal no-load power consumption for EPS - Tier 2

Source: Midpoint between CoC Tier 2 and BAT which is based on the top 5% of a 2015 NRCAN database and checked with 2018 data from www.digikey.com

Table 15 Requirements on minimal average active efficiency for EPS - Tier 2

Source: Source: Midpoint between CoC Tier 2 and BAT which is based on the top 5% of a 2015 NRCAN database and checked with 2018 data from www.digikey.com

The increase of the energy efficiency requirements will remove or shift the efficiency for 90% of the products on the market in 2020 compared to BAU scenario (see Annex 4).

Stakeholder views: NGOs such as ECOS and ANEC/BEUC requested, during consultation on the review study, that a detailed assessment would be carried out regarding setting more ambitious efficiency requirements than the ones of CoC Tier 2. MS had mixed views regarding a possible third tier to introduce even more stringent requirements, and subsequently concentrated their views on analysing the two tiers as described in PO3.

5.3.Options discarded at an early stage

5.3.1.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 the industry, there is no voluntary agreement that meets the conditions 44 of the Ecodesign Directive. When substituting mandatory requirements by a voluntary agreement there would also be a risk of free riders 45 , should not all actors present on the market sign and comply with the agreement. As a consequence, this option is discarded from further analysis.

Stakeholder views: None of the stakeholders are in favour of a voluntary agreement for the reasons described above.

5.3.2.Energy labelling

A complementary option to minimum energy efficiency requirements could be the use of energy labels according to the Energy Labelling Regulation. These provide comparable information on the energy efficiency levels and other relevant information to consumers.

However, it is important to underline that EPSs usually are sold bundled with primary load products, which are typically the focus of the consumer purchasing choice. This entails the following consequences:

(i) The purchasing criteria do not focus on the quality of the EPS, but rather on the quality (and price) of the main product;

(ii) The potential energy saving of the individual EPS is rather small compared with the primary load product (majority in the range of 3 – 20 kWh energy savings over entire product lifetime), so there is little incentive for buyers to make EPS efficiency a criterion for their purchase choice.

In addition, in most cases the EPSs in scope are purchased by professional buyers that bundle them with primary load products. Professional buyers may not always choose the most efficient EPS for several reasons (as discussed in the previous sections, e.g. higher price, low visibility of EPSs). Nevertheless, these reasons do not usually involve a lack of information or inability to understand the information provided, i.e. problems for which an energy label would offer a good solution.

Finally, it would also be technically challenging to define energy efficiency classes that would enable sufficient differentiation between various EPSs because the difference in electricity cost between two classes would be minor. As an illustrative example, the difference in energy savings between the US DOE level to CoC Tier 2 level is approximately 0.1 kWh/year for an EPS used by a mobile phone or a grooming product. This results in additional financial savings of some 0.02 €/year 46 .

An energy label under the Energy Labelling Regulation would thus create administrative burden on manufacturers and retailers while offering little to no gain. Therefore, this option is discarded from further analysis.

Stakeholder views: None of the stakeholders are in favour of energy labelling of EPSs for the reasons described above.

5.3.3.Requirement on minimum energy efficiency at 10% load

Minimum active efficiency requirement at 10% load was discarded during the consultations with stakeholders because of the reasons mentioned below.

Firstly, there is a lack of data on EPS efficiency at 10% load, which makes it very difficult to set an appropriate efficiency level. The additional EPS redesign costs associated with a minimum efficiency requirement could be disproportionate at this stage without reliable data to calculate the energy savings, and could result in negative LCC for products.

Secondly, there are strong divergent views between the stakeholders on a specific efficiency requirement. Neither the International Marking Protocol, nor the US regulations contain such a requirement for the time being.

Therefore, this option will not be further assessed. An alternative requirement on measuring the efficiency at 10% load and disclosing the information was proposed instead. This approach will bring transparency regarding the behaviour at 10% load and make available the data needed. That could be subsequently used in the next revision of the regulation for re-assessing the need to have a requirement on minimum efficiency.

Stakeholder views: NGOs such as ECOS, ANEC/BEUC and NRDC expressed strong support for minimum efficiency requirement at 10% load, while the industry stakeholders expressed strong opposition to this requirement. Some MSs, such as Germany, were concerned about the costs implication of this requirement as being disproportionate in comparison with the benefits it would bring. As a consequence, most of the participants at the Consultation Forums in 2013 and 2015 (not including the NGOs) expressed support for the Commission’s proposal made back then to include at this stage an information requirement (as described in the policy options), rather than a minimum efficiency requirement.

5.3.4.Material efficiency requirements 

Material efficiency aspects and possible measures were discussed with the stakeholders at two Consultation Forums. An additional assessment (completed between these two meetings) examined closer the topics discussed. Three possible main approaches were discussed:

1.A compatibility requirement, i.e. a requirement making it easier to use a common EPS for a broader range of products, and to avoid bundling a separate EPS with each product;

2.A requirement on detachable cables, which would avoid discarding the entire EPS if the cable is damaged;

3.A requirement on maximum weight of the EPS, which would be a simple way of reducing material content.

The Commission services stressed at the Consultation Forum that:

-for point 1 – a mandatory requirement could have disproportionate effects on a whole range of products and might hamper innovation. Manufacturers would also lose control over the charging process, creating problems for e.g. fast-charging optimised products. For these reasons, voluntary approaches proposing a universal EPS standard would be a better tool for reducing the number of EPSs shipped with products and would achieve savings more quickly than an Ecodesign requirement, whilst allowing for frequent updating of the requirements. It also pointed out that the Commission was preparing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for stimulating the industry, in a voluntary way, to standardise certain EPSs for consumer products (mainly smartphones) and allow interchangeability;

-for point 2 – this would lead to potential safety risks, wrong use, standardisation problems and additional costs to manufacturers for components and design rights;

-for point 3 - the regulation in force has already contributed substantially to reducing the average weight of EPSs and that more data was needed to judge the actual savings potential and the broader implications linked to a possible requirement on maximal EPS weight.

Furthermore, several challenges were identified that led to not proposing disassembly measures in this revision. These include: the lack of standardised methods for compliance assessment, difficulties in allowing flexibly for developments in recycling processes and materials/technology innovations, the need to balance design for disassembly against product safety considerations, and the risk of adding disproportionate administrative burden.

A further analysis carried out during the impact assessment found that even in cases where standardisation of output connectors would be achieved for EPSs, the need to put in place additional measures aimed at unbundling the sales of EPSs together with their main load products would still remain. Thus, a twofold approach could be followed: (i) to take advantage on the latest market evolutions brought by the recent introduction of USB Type-C connectors backed up by the USB Power Delivery specifications (more details on the USB technology are presented in Annex 6), and (ii) to introduce, where possible, measures incentivising unbundling (as it is now investigated in the revision of the ecodesign regulation on electronic displays 47 ).

Finally, based on the findings regarding EPSs used for laptops 48 , dismantling the main EPS parts for recycling still does not present a business case (not even for those relatively larger EPSs). At the end of life, they are treated as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and are subject to mechanical shredding followed by material recovery of the most valuable waste fractions (notably ferrous and copper).

Therefore, a possible requirement in this review of the Regulation was discarded based on the consultations, reflecting the views of a majority of stakeholders (see also the meeting minutes in Annex 2), and on further analysis by the Commission services. The proposal from the Commission services is to re-assess material efficiency in the next review process, based on a stock tacking of the latest technological and market developments (notably regarding the deployment of USB Type-C compatible EPSs and main load products). It should be also noted that the MoU mentioned above did not yet take shape.

For coping with the difficulties to include circular economy requirements in the current revision, the Commission’s proposal would provide for the next revision to be carried out sooner, i.e. within four years instead of the usual five-year period.

Stakeholder views: NGOs such as ECOS and ANEC/BEUC expressed support for material efficiency requirements and actions to promote unbundling of EPSs from their primary load products. MSs expressed more reserved views, generally not asking for, or even opposing, mandatory ecodesign requirements at this stage (e.g. Italy opposed including material efficiency requirements at this stage, DE and NL that supported voluntary standardisation of EPSs – via a standardisation mandate if possible – and BE proposed an information requirement on EPS weight).

5.3.5.Scope extension to cover wireless chargers

Scope extension to include wireless chargers (using the inductive charging principle) was considered during the review process because of growing interest in wireless chargers for mobile devices, such as mobile phones. The option was however not pursued because the technology is still maturing with different wireless standards being promoted 49 . More importantly, standardised measurement methods are still lacking. Having a way of reliably measuring the performance of wireless chargers is instrumental for enforcing a mandatory measure, and the lack of such a standardised test would prevent MSAs from surveying the market. Furthermore, the market penetration of wireless chargers was considered not high enough for justifying at this stage the major research efforts needed for addressing them properly.

Therefore, this option will not be further assessed. The potential of wireless chargers will nevertheless be re-assessed during the next review of the Regulation, on the basis of the latest technological and market developments.

Stakeholder views: NGOs such as ECOS, have expressed strong support for the inclusion of wireless chargers in the scope. MS such as Germany supported the option to investigate this scope extension during the next revision.

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.Methodological considerations and key assumptions

With the adoption of the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019 in November 2016, the Commission committed for the first time explicitly to systematically exploring resource efficiency requirements in ecodesign. As a result, the methodological basis for the inclusion of such requirements is not yet fully developed; there are no well-established and accepted methodologies in place to identify requirements in the context of mandatory legislation (contrary to green public procurement, ecolabels, etc.).

Therefore, the ‘circular economy’ requirements that are analysed are based in particular on stakeholder input, existing studies and evidence of product failure, and focus on measures that can be relatively easily implemented. As such, they can be considered a starting point that can subsequently be complemented or refined when the methodological tools are available.

There is also a lack of methodologies to ‘quantify’ the costs and benefits of such criteria in the context of the ‘least life cycle cost’ (LLCC) calculations applied for energy efficiency in ecodesign, in particular as regards the assessment of trade-offs.

To address the gaps in the methodological framework, the Commission mandated CEN/CENELEC to develop standards for material efficiency under ecodesign and a first set of horizontal standards is expected next year. These will be integrated in the MEErP methodology as appropriate. A broader update of the MEErP is foreseen in 2019, in particular to see how circular economy aspects could be better integrated in preparatory and review studies, and the LLCC calculations.

The methodology and key assumptions used in this impact assessment are as follows:

The analytical methods used to determine the impacts and the details about the share of products that would be removed from the market under different scenarios are described at length in Annex 4. A model is used for calculating the EPS stock (based on current stock, sales and end-of-life), overall energy consumption and GHG emissions (based on unit consumption and total stock), user expenditure (including EPS purchase and energy costs), and industry turnover and jobs created. This model is built on ten ‘base cases’, representing the main EPS types on the market. Each base case has specific usage patterns, expected life times, efficiencies, and purchase costs. For each policy option (PO) the additional improvement costs, needed for modifying the products to achieve the proposed ecodesign requirements are also calculated. Life cycle costs (LCC) for each of the ten base cases are calculated based on purchase costs (including additional compliance costs for each PO) and energy consumption costs (including specific gains for each PO). As an indication of the least life cycle cost (LLCC), a total LCC is calculated across all base cases, considering a typical household with ten EPSs, one from each category.

A key assumption is that by the end of each year when a certain requirement comes into force, 80% of the annual sales will be made up of EPSs that will already be compliant. Another important assumption is the improvement costs entailed in each PO. These are based on the approach taken by the US DOE for adopting the US requirements (see details in Annex IV, point 4). Key assumptions were also used for modelling the industry turnover and jobs created. The total improvement costs are assumed to be passed on entirely to the customers, without the demand being affected. This indeed seems to be the case, as the EPSs are sold bundled with main load products. Additional employment per sector is then derived from the industry turnovers and turnover per employee ratios. Although this is an imperfect approximation and the estimated additional employment cannot be guaranteed in practice, it is based on a method widely used in the ecodesign impact assessments.

Additional assumptions and details on calculations are presented in the following sections.

6.2.Environmental impacts

6.2.1.Electricity savings

The electricity savings calculated for each policy option come from the higher efficiency levels that would be required for the EPSs placed on the EU market. In PO2, the majority of EPSs would reach the US DOE efficiency level of efficiency by the end of 2020, considering that the requirement comes into force in January 2020. PO3 and 4 will follow the same pattern as PO2 until the second tier comes into force and then follow the evolution for matching that level. That means that in PO3 by 2022 the majority of the EPSs would reach CoC Tier 2 efficiency level, and in PO4 the majority would reach the Tier 2 efficiency level of midway between CoC Tier 2 and BAT. See Annex 4 for assumption of efficiency distribution of sales over the years.

The energy consumption of the total product stock 50 is presented in Figure 14 . It can be observed that PO2 and 3 result in very similar energy consumption.

Figure 14 Total stock energy consumption in TWh per annum

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Table 16 presents the electricity consumption, and annual and cumulative savings for the policy options. In 2030, PO4 yields the most savings (6.25 TWh), PO3 yields the second largest savings (4.57 TWh), followed by PO2 (4.26 TWh, with only 0.31 TWh less compared to PO3). PO2 would bring annual savings approximately equal to the electricity consumption of Cyprus in 2015.

Table 16 Electricity consumption and annual and cumulative savings for different policy scenarios

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

6.2.2.Greenhouse gases emissions reduction

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are calculated by using the emission rate for electricity in Ecodesign Impact Accounting status report 2016 51 to convert the electricity consumption presented above in TWh to Mt CO2-eq.

Figure 15 Greenhouse gases emission in CO2-eq for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

The results in Figure 15 follow a very similar pattern as the electricity consumption, but with an overall downward trend because the emission rate is decreasing over time, as it is anticipated that renewable energy sources will increasingly be used for generating electricity. In 2030, PO4 yields the highest emission reduction (2.12 Mt), PO3 the second largest reductions (1.55 Mt), with PO2 immediately after that (1.45 Mt, equivalent to around 55% of the total GHG emissions of Malta in 2015). Table 17 presents the greenhouse gas emission and annual and cumulative reductions for all policy options.

Table 17 Greenhouse gases emission and reductions compared with BAU for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

6.3.Business impacts

Manufacturers in this impact assessment are the EPS manufacturers. Wholesalers are usually the sales channels from which retailers can buy a product and sell it to consumers. However in the case of EPSs, the wholesaler is often the primary product manufacturer who sells its products together with the EPS to retailers. Since EPSs are usually not directly sold to end-users, with only a few exceptions of spare parts or replacement sales, the retailers’ revenue is not considered here.

The EPS manufacturer selling price is estimated at 57% 52 of the final product price paid by the consumer. This is multiplied by the annual sales to arrive at annual turnover. The wholesaler’s selling price is assumed to be 74% 53 of the product price (having a 17% wholesaler margin added on top of the 57%). This is also multiplied by the annual sales to arrive at the wholesale turnover. The turnover of the retailer (where a margin of 26% is assumed) is usually the actual product price multiplied by the annual sales. However, as EPSs are usually not sold alone but together with the primary products and the EPS accounts for a marginal share of the primary product price, it would have little added value to quantify the impact of EPSs on the retailer. Product prices are expressed in constant 2015 prices. See Figure 16 for industry turnover.

Table 18 presents the EPS manufacturers' and wholesalers' turnover and extra turnover compared with BAU for policy options. PO4 yields the highest overall industry revenue increase (444 mln. €) in 2030 because the purchase costs for consumers are the highest for PO4. PO3 has the second largest increase (87 mln. €) and PO2 the lowest increase (73 mln. €).

Figure 16 Industry turnover (incl. manufacturers and wholesalers) for policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

The derived revenue figures are global figures as EPS manufacturers are multinational companies with R&D and administration in the EU, but production often located elsewhere. Data on the global electrical and electronic industry from ZVEI 54 indicated that the EU accounts for around 14% of the global market (in terms of bln. €). Thus, it is estimated that the EU industry turnover is 14% of the calculated figures. This means that PO4 yields an EU industry revenue increase of 62 mln. € in 2030. PO3 yields an increase of 12 mln. € and PO2 yields an increase of 10 mln. €.

It is important to note that the increase in turnover is assumed to cover only the extra costs for producing more efficient EPSs. No changes in profits for manufacturers are included in the calculations.

Table 18 EPS manufacturers' and wholesalers' turnover and extra turnover for industry (manufacturer + wholesaler) compared with BAU for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

6.4.Consumer expenditure 

The prices of EPS are usually included in the primary product price and it is difficult to obtain the separate EPS price, unless it is sold as a spare part or it is a universal charger sold as an accessory. For the purposes of the impact assessment calculations, equivalent representative prices for the consumer were determined by factoring in the EPS manufacturer costs via “mark-ups” (see Annex 4 for details). The manufacturing costs are obtained from US DOE technical analyses 55 , and industry stakeholder consultation 56 and are evaluated against the desk research of spare part costs and component costs of primary products (via reports from Statista 57 , which is a portal with statistics from a broad range of sources). Although EPS prices might not affect the purchasing decision of customers buying the main load products, these prices are nevertheless instrumental for calculating the life cycle costs of EPSs (at a product level) and determining the most cost-effective way of improving their energy performance. EPS prices are also an important input for estimating overall consumer expenditure and savings (aggregated for the whole stock of EPSs in use).

A basic EPS in the range of 3.5W to 5W could have an equivalent consumer price of between 2 and 4 €. An EPS for a smart phone or tablet (10W to 18W) could range from 7 to 11 € (top end for a USB charger using USB PD standard to automatically change the output voltage and deliver fast charging). The price for an EPS for notebooks or game consoles, covering a wide range of voltages and possibly including multiple voltage outputs, could range between 12 to 35 €.

Table 19 presents the total consumer purchase costs and savings compared with BAU for different policy options. The savings are negative (effectively meaning increased costs) because the re-designed EPSs are more efficient, but also slightly more expensive.

Table 19 Consumer purchase costs and savings compared with BAU for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Electricity prices from PRIMES 2016 model 58 have been used to calculated energy costs. The electricity prices have been converted from 2013 prices to 2015 prices by using the average inflation rates from Eurostat 59 . Table 20 presents the consumer energy costs and savings compared with BAU for different policy options.

Table 20 Consumer energy costs and savings compared with BAU for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

The consumer expenditure cost is the sum of purchase costs and energy costs. Figure 17 and Table 21 show that PO2 and 3 follow a similar pattern, but PO3 yields slightly higher savings as there is a second tier of requirements. PO4 shows a much higher consumer expenditure between 2020 and 2024 due to higher purchase prices under a very ambitious tier 2 requirement, but the savings are also larger after 2024.

Figure 17 Consumer expenditure costs (EPS purchase + energy costs) for different policy options.

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Table 21 Consumer net expenditure (EPS purchase + energy costs) and savings compared with BAU for different policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Table 22 gives an overview of the life cycle costs (LCC) assessed for ‘typical’ EPSs (i.e. the 10 categories chosen as base cases). It can be seen that achieving the higher efficiencies of PO4 Tier 2 would cost consumers more than in the BAU for six out of the ten EPS types, meaning that their LCC is higher than for EPSs compliant with the current Ecodesign Regulation. The second tier of PO3 yields LCCs higher than BAU in three out of ten EPS types. PO2 costs consumers slightly more only for the low voltage EPS (type a in the table below). However, if in this case we consider a typical household with several different EPSs (belonging to various types shown in Table 22 ), the overall LCC per household would still yield savings.

Table 22 Life cycle cost per unit for different efficiency levels 60 : current Ecodesign (BAU), US DOE (PO2), CoC Tier 2 (PO3) and mid-point between CoC Tier 2 and BAT (PO4), and savings compared with BAU

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

6.5.Social impacts

This section assesses the impact that a revised regulation would have on employment. Figure 18 presents the extra industry employment (in EPS manufacturers and wholesalers) for the different policy options. Employment in each sector is estimated using the annual turnover of the sector and the turnover per employee ratio. The extra employment is assumed to come from the fact that higher efficiency means more R&D work for the EPS manufacturers as well as the sourcing and buying of components for the primary product manufacturers (also called wholesaler in this context). However, the extra employment cannot be guaranteed in practice, as it is based on the assumption that all extra costs borne by the industry for developing and producing more efficient EPSs will be transferred to consumers (and accepted by them), resulting in higher turnover for the manufacturers and wholesalers. See details calculation of employment and key assumptions made in Annex 4.

Figure 18 Industry extra employment (in EPS manufacturers and wholesales) for different policy options.

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

This impact assessment estimates that there are approx. 10141 full-time employees in the EPS manufacturers and 1488 employees in the wholesale of primary products using EPS in 2015. It is estimated that the total extra employment in the industry will be 289 jobs in 2020 for all policy options (since the same first tier will be in force in all). In 2030, PO2 creates a total of 255 extra jobs, PO3 creates 304 extra jobs and PO4 creates 1549 extra jobs. See details in the tables below. Following the same estimate of 14% EU market share as presented in case of the industry revenue, in 2030 PO2 creates 35 extra jobs in the EU, PO3 creates 42 jobs and PO4 creates 216 jobs.

While there is a correlation between revenue and employment for manufacturing industry, there are other influencing factors (e.g. macro-economics, EU trade policy, strategy of EU companies to move workforce to low-cost countries outside the EU, etc.) that have not been taken into account in the impact modelling. Hence, the real job impacts are expected to be lower than indicated in the report.

Table 23 EPS manufacturers employment and extra job creation compared with BAU for policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

Table 24 Wholesaler employment and extra job creation compared with BAU for policy options

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

6.6.Other impacts

6.6.1.Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)

The SMEs share of the EPS market is estimated to be marginal, i.e. less than 1 %. It was not possible to identify any specific SMEs currently producing EPS in Europe. This is mainly because the EPS market is a high-volume market, where EPS products are mass-produced for a broad range of end-use products making it very difficult for an SME to compete. The major EPS manufacturers have been identified and presented in Annex 9, none of which can be classified as SME according to the EU definition.

Due to the increased manufacturer selling price of EPS as a result of improving efficiency and the need to re-test and re-certify the end products, European SME manufacturers of primary products using EPS will still be impacted by a revision of the regulation. There are a number of such SMEs in the EU, but they are unlikely to see disproportionate costs as EPS are mass-produced and they will benefit from the economies of scale of the large primary product manufacturers sourcing improved efficiency EPSs. The current impact assessment has identified a minimum of 30 SMEs of primary products using EPS in the EU 61 .

The key investments for SME manufacturers of primary products using EPSs will be in terms of the administrative and compliance costs. The impact of these costs has been taken into account in the model as increased product price and are presented in next section.

6.6.2.Administrative burden and compliance costs

In line with the established practice of legislation for the EU single market for goods, the proposed policy options would make use of the CE marking, affixed based on a declaration of conformity. In practice, when placing products regulated by Ecodesign on the market, companies are therefore required to:

I.assess the product’s conformity with the relevant requirements (typically requires physical testing of the energy efficiency of products);

II.issue an EC declaration of conformity;

III.affix the CE mark on the products;

IV.keep the documents relating to conformity assessments and declarations of conformity available for inspection by Member States for a period of 10 years after the last product has been manufactured.

Such costs are business as usual for products placed on the European market. A change to the current Ecodesign Regulation would mean that the EPS manufacturers, as well as primary product manufacturers (SMEs and large companies), would be subject to testing and certification/documentation costs to prove compliance.

The testing cost is estimated at 5000 € per model 62 for the majority of primary load products, but it can be also as high as 35,000 € for high-end computers and stationary game consoles. For primary products, the total EU SME compliance costs is estimated at 0.65 million €, and for large companies at 4.6 million €. See detail assumptions and calculations on costs and price in Annex 4. In total, the compliance costs for all primary product companies is ca. 5.25 million €, which equates to a range of 0.001 – 0.09 € per unit sale. This cost is typically transferred to the consumer through the product price.

The EPS manufacturers will also bear compliance costs associated with testing, certification and documentation. However, the testing of EPSs is usually simpler than for primary products, with testing cost estimated at 500-1000 € per model 63 . By summing up around 28 EPS manufacturers and approx. 190 models, the total compliance costs (using the more conservative estimate of 1000 € per model) is estimated at 5.29 million €. This equates to 0.01 € per unit sale.

If a two-tier approach (option 3 and 4) is taken in the revised regulation, there is a risk that there will be a double requirement for the re-testing of products with re-sourced EPSs and the re-issuing of product documentation (i.e. compliance documentation, technical product fiche, website information) for the second tier. However, option 3 compliant EPSs are already available according to online datasets 64 : around 20 % of the 2018 market is already at the better performing level of EU CoC Tier 2. Thus, re-testing costs would not be an issue for all products. This means that SMEs and any large companies could mitigate the risk of double compliance costs by sourcing from the outset EPSs that are compliant with the most stringent requirements.

7.How do the options compare?

7.1.Summary of the impacts

The major environmental, consumer, business, and social impacts are summarised in Table 25 below.

Table 25 Comparison of impacts of different policy options in 2030

Source: Based on calculations by Viegand Maagøe (see Annex 4)

7.2.Assessment of policy options

In accordance with Article 15(5) of the Ecodesign Framework Directive, each policy option should not have a significant negative impact, and therefore should fulfil the criteria in Table 26 . This assessment, which is detailed in various parts of Section 6, is summarised below.

Table 26 Evaluation of policy options in terms of their impacts compared to the baseline.

Although PO4 has the best values in most of the categories in Table 25, it cannot be retained because it does not fulfil the criterion ‘no significant negative impact on consumers’ of Article 15(5) for the following two reasons:

§As shown in Table 22, the consumer expenditure in PO4 is too high in terms of life cycle cost at product level:

(I)Six out of the ten EPS ‘base cases’ are presenting losses over their entire life cycle under PO4 compared to BAU; and

(II)For two of the remaining base cases, even if they show savings over the EPS life cycle, those savings are lower in PO4 than in PO and PO3.

§The overall consumer savings projected for 2030 (in Table 25) are also lower for PO4 compared to PO2 and PO3.

For all options, there would be compliance costs incurred by the manufacturers for redesign and production. These are assumed to be passed on to end users via higher EPS purchase prices (also if the EPS is bundled with the main load product). As explained in Annex 4, point 4, PO4 in particular would require more extensive redesigns of EPSs. Therefore, the additional costs would be higher for PO4 than for the other two options. These costs are reflected in the life cycle costs, leading to either losses (for six EPS types) or lower cost savings in PO4 than in other policy options (for two EPS types).

The lower consumer savings at the level of individual products (i.e. the ‘base cases’) in PO4, lowers the overall consumer savings projected for 2030 for the entire EPS stock for PO4 compared the other options.

On the other hand, PO2 and PO3 fulfil all criteria of Article 15(5).

An assessment of the options against the objectives set in Section 4 is presented in Table 27 below. The assessment is based on the impacts detailed in Section 6.

Table 27: Score of impacts against objectives. No Change (0), limited improvement (+), significant improvement (++). (Impact Assessment Study 2018)

*Innovation will enhance competitiveness of the EU manufacturers; the effect on innovation is therefore included in this objective.

All policy options (except BAU) improve the contribution of a revised Regulation to the general objectives. Although PO4 would bring higher energy and emissions savings than PO2 and PO3 against 2030 objectives, its overall contribution is very small 65 and does not constitute a significant improvement.

Similarly, all policy options (except BAU) bring improvements regarding their contributions to the specific objectives. PO2 is considered to bring a significant improvement as it aligns with the US requirements in force and with the latest level (i.e. VI) of the International Efficiency Marking Protocol. This is therefore likely to bring economies of scale and facilitate the update of testing standards (see more details in Section 8.1).

8.Preferred option

8.1.Preferred option – Why?

PO2 – Global alignment fulfils the criteria in Article 15(5) of the Ecodesign Regulation and will achieve the objectives set out in Section 4. It is therefore retained as the preferred option because:

(I)It is projected to yield only marginally (0.31 TWh) less electricity savings than PO3 (i.e. savings of 4.26 TWh/year compared to 4.57 TWh/year respectively by 2030);

(II)However, when the costs savings are broken down per EPS type, it is estimated that PO3 will result in higher average life cycle costs than PO2 (see Table 22); and

(III)PO2 is likely to be less sensitive to changing assumptions (see summary of sensitivity analyses below), as it will achieve the biggest economies of scale because it aligns with the US requirements already in force. This aspect was also acknowledged in the scoring given for the first specific objective (see Table 27).

PO2 and PO3 projections show very similar performance in terms of energy savings and GHG abatement. This happens because, while the second Tier in PO3 would bring additional energy savings, these are limited compared with the gains already secured by the first Tier (i.e. the equivalent of implementing PO2). However, this increased efficiency will come at additional (compliance) cost, which is sensitive to assumptions. For example, PO3 was assumed to have relatively modest additional compliance costs compared to PO2, but this might not be the case. Therefore, the impact assessment includes a sensitivity analysis that examined the impacts of variations in the compliance costs, which are assumed to directly reflect into the EPS sales prices.

The sensitivity analysis in Annex 8 shows the impact of a potentially higher cost of the Tier 2 requirement in PO3. Currently, the cost is assumed to remain proportional to the percentage of efficiency increase. The cost increase from PO2 to PO3 thus remains very modest, as the increase in efficiency is small. In the sensitivity analysis the cost is increased to the same level of costs for complying with Tier 1. As the additional Tier 2 would mean a departure from e.g. US DOE standards that mark a level where producers are already achieving economies of scale, it would require redesign and modified production capacities for EPSs, which might be more costly than a simple incremental increase. In other words the marginal improvement costs per product could be significantly higher than the ones assumed by the model used. In such a scenario, PO3 would result in a lower consumer expenditure saving in 2030, with a value below that realised by PO2. This shows that PO2 is more robust and performs better than PO3 when some cost assumptions change. It has to be noted that the model used in the IA does not directly account for the economies of scale brought by implementing PO2. Additional details about compliance costs are presented in Annex 4, point 4.

Another sensitivity analysis in Annex 8 investigated the impacts of underestimating the BAU efficiency of some EPSs with output power in the range of 10 – 20 W, and whether higher efficiency in the BAU scenario would undermine the savings potential. The impacts in 2030 show that PO2 is impacted the least with still 4.25 TWh/year savings (a reduction of 0,01 TWh), while PO3 has slightly more reduced savings (i.e. by 0.05 TWh to 4.52 TWh/year). This also shows that PO2 remains more robust than PO3 when assumptions on the energy efficiency of the overall stock change, although the energy savings brought by PO2 still remain slightly lower than in PO3.

Finally, in terms of comparing PO2 and PO3, the latter might require higher testing costs due to a need for recertification of a number of products, as explained in Section 6.6.2 and further detailed in Annex 4, point 5. This aspect is difficult to quantify in the projections of costs and benefits, and is therefore not accounted for in the model used.

In conclusion, PO4 is too costly for end users, while PO2 and PO3 perform fairly similarly in terms of energy savings, reducing GHG emissions, and economic impacts.

Based on the analyses presented above, the preferred option is PO2 - Global alignment.

Table 28 Preferred policy option

By 2030, PO2 Global alignment will result in:

·Energy savings of 4.26 TWh/year and GHG emission reductions of 1.45 MtCO2-eq./year, i.e. 0.3% of the EU 2030 target for final energy consumption savings and 0.14% of the EU 2030 target for GHG-emissions savings;

·Savings on annual end-user expenditure of € 787 million and extra business revenue of € 73 million per year, which translates into an indicative number of approximately 250 jobs for the manufacturers and wholesalers (out of which 35 jobs estimated in the EU);

·An update of Ecodesign requirements to keep up with technological progress, while achieving cost savings for the end-user;

·Closer alignment with requirements in other economies (in particular the US) and with the most stringent requirements of the International Efficiency Marking Protocol (which is one of the most visible international references for regulators). Such an alignment is expected to reap the full benefits of economies of scale, while also being ambitious;

·Maintaining limited impacts on SMEs manufacturing primary products that use EPS.

8.2.REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

The changes in the regulation are minor in terms of simplification and improving the efficiency of the regulation. The main impact on the Member States' administrative burden is positive and relates to the requirement for product information to be made available on freely accessible websites. This can provide the Member States' market surveillance authorities with easily accessible information on the manufacturers' marketed EPSs, which will facilitate the screening and selection of EPSs for possible reinforcement checks. The cost savings are however difficult to assess because they are very much linked to the specific activities at the level of each individual MS, with no central point of information regarding these costs being available for reference.

Table 29 REFIT Cost savings for the preferred option

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

The main monitoring element will be the tests carried out to verify compliance with the Ecodesign 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 regulations is the achievement of a market improvement towards EPSs with a smaller environmental impact. An analysis of the products on the market (sales figures, performance, etc.) will determine if the shift towards more resource efficient EPSs has happened as estimated, in particular based on the following sub-indicators, which reflect the general and specific objectives:

·Compliance with energy efficiency requirements, i.e. maximum no-load power consumption and minimum average active efficiency for the different product categories;

·Compliance with the revised Regulation of those products that were initially excluded due to loopholes;

·Reduction of the electricity consumption and related GHG emissions of EPSs;

·Increasing the economic savings for European consumers;

·Safeguarding the competitiveness of the European industry for EPS and primary products using EPS and the full value chain;

·Improving the regulatory effectiveness and efficiency of the regulation.

The evaluation should therefore assess these sub-indicators.

An important element that will be also monitored and subsequently assessed will be how EPSs could contribute better to circular economy objectives. The natural/technical convergence on the market towards a common solution that could support interchangeability (like the use of USB Type-C connectors) will be monitored in particular, together with any standardisation initiatives or industry commitments for supporting standardised EPSs that could be used for a wide range of products. This monitoring information does not refer to the performance of the Regulation, but to market-relevant information that could support a future analysis on circular economy aspects.

The Ecodesign regulations include legal review obligations for the Commission. These review obligations are usually the trigger for evaluating the measures in place, and for developing new policy options that ensure a continued alignment of the ecodesign requirements with the pace of technological progress and the latest international policy developments.

It is proposed to evaluate the revised EPS Regulation by 2024, considering that the new requirements would come into force in January 2020. The results of this evaluation should be presented to stakeholders and Member States in the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Consultation Forum.

(1)       Commission Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 of 6 April 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for no-load condition electric power consumption and average active efficiency of external power supplies, OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 3–10 , (Ecodesign Regulation)

(2)       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. (Energy Union Framework Strategy)

(3)       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 . (Deeper and fairer internal market)

(4)       Ecodesign impact accounting – Overview report for the European Commission DG Energy, VHK December 2016

(5)    Consultant support for the current Impact Assessment and the evaluation of current regulation by Viegand Maagøe A/S, 2018.

(6)       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  OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10-35 (Ecodesign Framework Directive)

(7)       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 . OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 1-23 (Energy Labelling Framework Regulation)

(8)       Study on the impact of the energy label – and potential changes to it – on consumer understanding and on purchase decisions - LE London Economics and IPSOS, October 2014

(9)     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.109-117

(10)      The EPSs are not the same as battery chargers, which charge batteries in isolation (extracted from the product), and are exempted from the scope of the Ecodesign Regulation.

(11)       Commission Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 of 6 April 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for no-load condition electric power consumption and average active efficiency of external power supplies  

(12)      The stated scope explicitly excludes battery chargers (that connect directly to removable batteries), uninterruptable power supplies (e.g. the ones used in data centres and enterprise server rooms for maintaining continuity of power supply to computers and servers), voltage converters (e.g. 230 V to 110 V travel adapters), converters used for halogen lighting and EPSs for medical devices. Uninterruptable power supplies and halogen lighting converters are addressed in other product-specific regulations.

(13)       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 OJ L 339, 18.12.2008, p. 45–52 (Standby Regulation)

(14)      To note that only very few models of televisions are having EPSs (this is only a recent trend, the majority of them still having internal power supplies). Furthermore, the portable vacuum cleaners with batteries are only a small percentage of all the vacuum cleaners covered by the specific ecodesign regulation.

(15)       https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/energy-efficiency/code-conduct/external-power-supplies (EU Code of conduct for EPS)

(16)       Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel.  OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1 (EU Ecolabel Regulation)

(17)      Review Study on Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies. September 2013. Final Report.

(18)       Communication from the Commission Ecodesign Working Plan. COM(2016) 773 final, Brussels, 30 November 2016. (Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019)

(19)       http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm ( Paris Agreement )

(20)       Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone of 1999 (Gothenburg Protocol)

(21)       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)

(22)       https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en  (ETS)

(23)       Communication of the commission to the European Parliament and the Council European Security Strategy . COM(2014) 0330 final.

(24)      Based on the current Ecodesign requirements on active energy efficiency and no-load power consumption.

(25)      Current BAT is based on the top 5% of a 2015 NRCAN database and checked with 2018 data from https://www.digikey.com/ . Note: The comparison is an approximation as the power output groupings of the current Regulation are slightly different than the groupings used in the IA.

(26)      Data retrieved from www.digikey.com, accessed February 2018. Data was sorted by region utilised and found the share of the EPS in the dataset that comply with the no-load and efficiency requirements from CoC Tier 2.

(27)      For EU there are presented the two tiers provided for in the current Regulation, which came into force in 2010 and 2011 respectively (hence the two EU flags marking those steps). A ‘tier’ is a level of stringency of the requirements in an Ecodesign regulation. When passing from Tier 1 to Tier 2, the first tier becomes obsolete.    Some other markets (e.g. US and Australia) have also reinforced their requirements over time.

(28)       https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0218  

(29)      A smartphone’s EPS could range from 7 to 11 EUR, while the price of an iPhone 8 is 799 EUR (assessed February 2018 https://www.apple.com/de/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-8 )  

(30)      D. R. Hill (2014), Energy efficiency and the Principal-Agent Problem: Measuring the effect of split incentives on the Austrian residential sector. IEA (2007), Mind the gap – Quantifying principal-agent problems in energy efficiency.  

(31)      Natural Resources Defense Council ’Input on the Review Study on the External Power Supply Regulation (EC) No 278/2009’, Delforge & Horowitz - October 31, 2013

(32)       "Energy Efficiency of the Internet of Things. Technology and Energy Assessment Report. Prepared for IEA 4E EDNA" April 2016 .

(33)       "USB Type-C Report – 2018" IHS Markit. November 2017.

(34)      Dataset from digikey.com, accessed February 2018.

(35)      All Ecodesign Regulations, except Regulation (EC) NO 107/2009 on simple set-top boxes, have information requirements.

(36)       Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13–390 (TEU)

(37)       Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47 (TFEU)

(38) https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-17_en_0.pdf (Better Regulation Toolbox)

(39)      The BAU scenario from 2009 was used then for analysing the impacts of introducing the Regulation currently in force, therefore it was a scenario without any ecodesign requirements in place. By contrast, the current BAU scenario incorporates the requirements of the current regulation, and also covers more EPS types to allow for an assessment of the scope extension.

(40)      Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10 → Chapter II → Subchapter D → Part 430 → Subpart B → Appendix Z - Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c9dbafe3c54ecf1ee3bbb502608fca50&mc=true&node=ap10.3.430_127.z&rgn=div9  

(41)      DIGITALEUROPE, consultation in February – March 2018 and Nintendo position paper,2015

(42)      Alcatel-Lucent (mobile telephones), Lenovo Group Ltd. (power supplies), Salcomp Oy (AC adapter and battery chargers for mobile telephone and IT equipment) and Samsung (mobile telephones).

(43)      The minimum efficiencies are expressed in efficiency intervals applicable to specific base cases, rather than using formulae as in PO3.

(44)      One of the conditions that has to be met by a self-regulation is to cover at least 80% of the market. This is not the case with e.g. the EU CoC that is also a voluntary instrument, but which does not cover such a large share of the units sold on the EU market as it is aimed at the best performing products.

(45)      A free-rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an underprovision of those goods or services. (Baumol, William (1952). Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)

(46)      Calculation done under this impact assessment, Viegand Maagøe, 2018

(47)      The ongoing revision of Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 investigates the possibility to incentivise the sales of televisions and computer displays without the EPS required to function, and include an indication on this on the energy label. Thus, the users could reuse compatible EPSs they have previously purchased.

(48)      Analysis of material efficiency aspects of personal computers product group - Joint Research Centre, Technical Report January 2018.     http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC105156/20180115_-_jrc_technical_report_online_v02.pdf  

(49)       http://www.qiwireless.com/ and https://www.airfuel.org/  

(50)      The stock energy consumption includes the energy consumption of both the EPS and the primary load product. This approach was chosen to better align with other existing calculation methodologies and figures (e.g. the ones developed by the industry stakeholders). However, the energy savings (i.e. the differences in the energy consumption when compared with BAU) are achieved exclusively by improving the EPS performance. In other words the energy savings are only due to implementing the different policy options, as the sole change in each PO is the change in the efficiency levels of the EPSs with no changes in behaviour of the primary load products.

(51)       https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/eia_ii_-_status_report_2016_rev20170314.pdf  

(52)      The mark-up of 2.56 was used for deriving manufacturing costs at 39% of the EPS product price, to which the manufacturer profit margin of 18% was added to obtain the figure of 57% manufacturer selling price reported to the final consumer price. Source: DIGITALEUROPE, feedback to the Revision of Lot 7 External Power Supplies Regulation, Brussels, 16 June 2015 

(53)      DIGITALEUROPE, feedback to the Revision of Lot 7 External Power Supplies Regulation, Brussels, 16 June 2015 

(54) https://www.zvei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Presse_und_Medien/Publikationen/2017/Juli/Die_globale_Elektroindustrie_Daten_Zahlen_Fakten/Fact-Sheet-International-2017.pdf , accessed April 2018.

(55)   https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217  

(56) Manufacturing costs and estimated EPS prices have been sent to industry stakeholders for verification, 2015. The prices have been confirmed to have not changed drastically during consultation in February – March 2018.

(57)   https://www.statista.com  

(58) Scenario REF2015f

(59)   http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:HICP_all-items,_annual_average_inflation_rates,_2006-2016_(%25)_YB17.png  

(60)      ERP EFF are the requirements in the BAU scenario, US DoE represent the implementation of PO2, CoC Tier 2 represent the enforcement of the second tier in PO3, while Half BAT is the enforcement of the second tier in PO4.

(61)      SMEs for different primary products matching the base cases used in this impact assessment have been identified online during the research of primary product models (in March 2018). However, this is the consultant’s best approximation and there can be more SMEs. Identified European SMEs/product: portable game console: 1, notebook computer: 1, network equipment and set-top boxes: 2, mobiles: 7, speakers and sound systems: 19.

(62)      DIGITALEUROPE comments, 2015

(63)      Estimated based on stakeholder estimate of ca. 500 EUR per test, March 2018. It is also based on that a standby testing cost of ca. 1300 EUR provided by a EU test laboratory, 2017.

(64)      Data retrieved from www.digikey.com , accessed February 2018.

(65)      0,1% more in PO4 than in PO2 with regard to energy savings, and 0.06% with regard to GHG emissions

Table of contents

1.    Introduction: Political and legal context    3

1.1.    Benefits of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling    3

1.2.    Legal framework    4

1.2.1.    Current regulation for External Power Supplies    5

1.2.2.    EU Ecolabelling Regulation    6

1.3.    Legal context of the reviews    7

1.4.    Political Context    7

1.5.    Need to act    7

2.    Problem definition    8

2.1.    What are the problems?    8

2.1.1.    Problem 1: Outdated energy efficiency requirements    8

2.1.2.    Problem 2: Outdated scope    12

2.1.3.    Problem 3: Lack of readily available information    14

2.1.4.    Problem 4: Missed opportunities for contributing to circular economy objectives    16

2.2.    Who is affected by the problems?    17

2.2.1.    Consumers    17

2.2.2.    EU, Member States and MSAs    18

2.2.3.    Society as a whole    18

2.3.    How will the problems evolve?    18

2.3.1.    Slow uptake of more efficient EPS will lead to increased missed energy savings    18

2.3.2.    Market failure due to outdated regulation    19

3.    Why should the EU act?    19

3.1.    Legal basis    19

3.2.    Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action    20

3.3.    Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action    21

4.    Objectives: What is to be achieved?    21

4.1.    General objectives    21

4.2.    Specific objectives    21

5.    What are the available policy options?    22

5.1.    What is the baseline from which the options are assessed? - BAU option    23

5.2.    Description of the policy options    24

5.2.1.    Ecodesign legislative amendments that are common for all policy options (PO2 – PO4)    24

5.2.2.    Policy Option 2 - Global alignment    25

5.2.3.    Policy Option 3 - Ambitious EU measure    26

5.2.4.    Policy Option 4 - Very ambitious EU measure    27

5.3.    Options discarded at an early stage    28

5.3.1.    Voluntary agreement by the industry    28

5.3.2.    Energy labelling    29

5.3.3.    Requirement on minimum energy efficiency at 10% load    29

5.3.4.    Material efficiency requirements    30

5.3.5.    Scope extension to cover wireless chargers    31

6.    What are the impacts of the policy options?    32

6.1.    Methodological considerations and key assumptions    32

6.2.    Environmental impacts    33

6.2.1.    Electricity savings    33

6.2.2.    Greenhouse gases emissions reduction    34

6.3.    Business impacts    35

6.4.    Consumer expenditure    37

6.5.    Social impacts    39

6.6.    Other impacts    41

6.6.1.    Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)    41

6.6.2.    Administrative burden and compliance costs    41

7.    How do the options compare?    42

7.1.    Summary of the impacts    42

7.2.    Assessment of policy options    43

8.    Preferred option    44

8.1.    Preferred option – Why?    44

8.2.    REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)    46

9.    How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?    46

Annex 1: Procedural information    48

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation    55

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?    72

Annex 4: Analytical methods    75

Annex 5: The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Framework    97

Annex 6: Existing Policies, Legislation and Standards affecting External Power Supplies    102

Annex 7: Evaluation of Ecodesign Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 requirements for external power supplies    109

Annex 8: Sensitivity analyses    115

Annex 9: Overview on EPS manufacturers    117

Annex 10: Glossary    119

Annex 1: Procedural information

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

DG ENER is the lead DG for the Ecodesign regulation on EPS.

The Decide number of the underlying initiative for the review of ecodesign requirements for external power supplies is 2015/ENER/054. A roadmap was published in June 2015 at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2011_ener_044_ecodesign_energy_labelling_implementing_measures_en.pdf .

The following DGs (Directorates General) have been invited to contribute to this impact assessment: 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 report in April 2018.

2.Organisation and timing

According to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 278/2009, the review of the regulation should take place no later than four years after entry into force (i.e. 26 April 2009).

The last Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019 1 , adopted in November 2016, confirms that external power supplies continue to be a priority product group.

The timing of the review process of Regulation 278/2009 is as follows:

·Entry into force of Regulation 278/2009: 26 April 2009.

·Review study draft final report: 13 March 2013.

·Ecodesign Consultation Forum on the Review of Regulation 278/2009: 18 April 2013.

·Review study final report: September 2013.

·Additional assessment report (it was needed to analyse additional topics which were not covered by the review study, such as: the need for re-design and costs associated, Least Life Cycle Costs based on base cases, update with last versions of the EU CoC and the DOE rules, assess further stakeholder comments, assess material efficiency requirement, and carry out further data collection): September 2013 - January 2014.

·Further consultations with the industry (mainly on the additional topics assessed): February – December 2014.

·Written Consultation: Starting on 16 April 2015, including a presentation of the updated Working Document to stakeholders at the Horizontal Consultation Forum held on 29 April 2015, up to the extended deadline for written comments on 31 May 2015.

·Initial Impact Assessment: December 2014 – September 2015.

·In 2016, two College orientation debates took place aimed at discussing and deciding on the future implementation of Ecodesign. The College decided to adopt ecodesign and energy labelling measures in packages. The first package was subsequently planned for end-2018 (in order to comply with the requirements of the new framework Regulation on energy labelling (EU) 2017/1369 regarding re-scaling some of the existing labels). Thus, the preparatory work on revising the EPS regulation was adapted to fit the new planning.

·Updated Impact Assessment (which was needed for updating the datasets used for the impact modelling, and to update the overall format and intervention logic in line with the Commission's Better Regulation approach): February 2018 - May 2018.

Article 19 of the Directive 2009/125/EC foresees a regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adoption of implementing measures. Subject to qualified majority support in the regulatory committee and after scrutiny of the European Parliament and of the Council, the adoption of the measure 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 on the EPS impact assessment 2 and the “Horizontal issues for discussion” sent to DG ENER on 8 June 2018, and resubmitted to the Board. A positive overall 2nd opinion 3 was issued on 3 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.

4.Evidence, sources and quality

The impact assessment draws on an extensive amount of desk research, external studies, targeted consultations, interviews with relevant stakeholders and input from Member State representatives.

This updated impact assessment is based on the findings of the Review Study carried out by an external consultancy company (Viegand Maagøe A/S), the Ecodesign Consultation Forum, the additional assessment carried out in 2013 by Viegand Maagøe A/S, and further consultations and impact assessment in 2015 with the support of Viegand Maagøe A/S).

On the basis of this review work, the Commission drafted the policy options presented in this IA.

The calculations are based on an impact assessment model used in other impact assessments of product regulations 4 under the Ecodesign framework Directive and the Energy Labelling Framework Regulation.

As part of the Review Study an extensive stakeholder consultation was performed to collect data on efficiency, prices, costs etc. and to verify assumptions and data quality.

During the impact assessment, further data were collected from stakeholders and from a market research organisation to provide input on the modelling of the impact on energy, environment, economy and employment.

The stakeholders included:

·Manufacturers of EPSs;

·Manufacturers of electronic components, chips etc., which are used in the EPSs;

·Manufacturers of primary load products (such as electric and electronic devices in homes and offices) using EPSs;

·Industry associations of the above-mentioned manufacturers;

·Environmental and consumer organisations.

External expertise was used where necessary, for example from the ad-hoc working group (composed by independent experts, Member States representatives and representatives of industry) behind the EU Code of Conduct for EPSs.

The following Annex 2 provides more details on the stakeholder consultations held.

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

A thorough consultation of stakeholders took place throughout both the preparatory phase (when completing the review study and additional assessments) and the impact assessment phase (when further data was collected and latest technological developments were discussed with the industry). This was done both in formal meetings, as well as bilateral contacts. Details on processes employed, stakeholders consulted and their positions are provided hereafter.

This measure did not require an Open Public Consultation, due to its preparation timeline and the extensive inputs received throughout the process.

1.Consultation and expertise

Formal stakeholder meetings took place in 2013 and 2015 (during the preparatory phase) under the specific Ecodesign framework for gathering the positions of MS representatives and interested parties concerned with the product, such as industry, industry associations, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations. External expertise on external power supplies was collected and analysed during this process. The results of the stakeholder consultation before, during and after the two consultation forums (Consultation Forum meeting of 18 April 2013 on EPS and of 29 April 2015 on horizontal aspects, which included EPS) are described in the following section. The minutes of these forum meetings are included in this annex.

2.Review study and stakeholder consultations 

The review study for Commission Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 started in Q1 2013 and was completed in September 2013. The study was followed by an additional assessment, in September 2013 - January 2014, that were needed to cover additional topics not covered by the first review study (such as: the need for re-design and costs associated, Least Life Cycle Costs based on base cases, updates with last versions of the EU CoC and the DOE rules, assess further stakeholder comments, assess material efficiency requirements, and further data collection). The review study and subsequent additional assessment study covered EPSs in the current scope of the Regulation, and also considered various EPSs not currently in the scope, such as high power (>250W) EPS, multiple voltage output EPS (i.e. those that supply current at different power levels on different outlets at the same time) and wireless chargers. It considered the saving potential of three tiers of requirements and a 10% loading active efficiency requirement.

The review study included a technical and environmental analysis to assess the pertinence of introducing regulatory measures for these products and to assess policy options, as per the review clause of the regulation, and within the framework of the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC. The Ecodesign Consultation Forum that took place on 18 April 2013 (see below) discussed the technical option proposed. The subsequent additional assessment, which was requested by the stakeholders, focused on the economic impacts these options would have.

The review study and subsequent additional assessment were developed in an open process, taking into account input from relevant stakeholders including manufacturers and their associations, environmental NGOs, consumer organisations and Member State representatives. As part of these assessments, various web-meetings and an informal stakeholder consultation meeting were held between 2013 and 2015 for interested stakeholders to discuss and validate the review study results. An informal stakeholder meeting was held at DIGITALEUROPE premises in Brussels on 30 September 2013.

3.Working Document and Consultation Fora 

Building on the preliminary results of the review study, the Commission services presented a Working Document (i.e. a draft revised Regulation) to the Ecodesign Consultation Forum on EPS on 18 April 2013. Representation was balanced between Member State representatives and all relevant interested and affected parties (manufacturer associations, NGOs, etc.) concerned with the product group, in line with Article 18 of the Ecodesign Directive.

Further to the conclusions of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum and the additional assessment, the Commission services presented an updated Working Document at the horizontal Consultation Forum of 29 April 2015 and asked for further written comments.

In both cases, the Working Documents were circulated before the meeting to the members of the Consultation Forum. The working document was included in the Commission’s CIRCABC online system (accessible to the registered stakeholders), together with the stakeholder comments received in writing before and after the meetings, and the meeting minutes.

4.Results of stakeholder consultations 

The Consultation Forum on External Power Supplies on 18 April 2013 concluded that:

·The current review should focus on those options that would realise the most savings;

·The EU Code of Conduct (CoC) v5 Tier 2 was considered a good reference for tightening of requirements for the energy efficiency of EPS. However, more information on costs and impacts is to be sought;

·A third tier of requirements would not be appropriate;

·A requirement for active energy efficiency at 10% load did not get a broad agreement, due to insufficient information and lack of standards. Instead, an information requirement should be included at this stage, with a view of revisiting the issue at the next revision of the Regulation;

·Multiple output voltage EPS should be included and the definition of EPSs established in Article 2.1 of the Regulation should be modified accordingly;

·Due to minimal savings potential the high power EPSs should not be included in the current revision. The matter could be re-assessed under the next revision of the Regulation.

·Issues linked to the exemption of low voltage EPS and related primary load products from the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 on standby and off mode, and networked standby electric power consumption should be addressed in the context of the review of that regulation, rather than the review of EPS Regulation.

·Provisions on material efficiency and wireless chargers are difficult to include at this stage (due to lack of information, lack of a broader support on issues and evolving technological trends on the market). However, a strong message on the intention to address these issues should be included in the revision clause, to be addressed by the next revision of the Regulation.

After taking on board the above-mentioned conclusions of the Consultation Forum, the Commission presented an updated working document at the Ecodesign Consultation Forum on Horizontal Matters held on 29 April 2015. No specific conclusions were sought during that meeting, but stakeholders were invited to provide further written comments.

The minutes of both Consultation Forums are included at the end of this annex.

The main positions expressed in writing by stakeholders regarding the revised Working Document can be summarised as follows (details are provided subsequently):

·Industry represented by DIGITALEUROPE made a strong case for having only one tier, aligning with the requirements of the US DOE rulemaking that were to came into force subsequently (i.e. February 2016). They questioned the timing of the tiers, in particular the benefit of a closely-timed second tier, preferring future requirements to be postponed to the next revision of the regulation and coordinated with US DOE. They raised concerns around the timing and coverage of the information requirement on efficiency at 10% loading levels, as well as the language relating to spare parts. Further input was also received on the treatment of indirect operation EPS (which are defined in the US requirements), the impact of EU-US voltage differences on efficiency measurements, and various testing considerations.

·Environmental NGOs and consumer associations supported a second tier with more stringent requirements and inclusion of multiple voltage output EPS within scope. They also asked for a requirement on active efficiency at 10% load to be included and for greater consideration on material efficiency aspects.

·There was general support amongst MSs to harmonise EPS requirements with US DOE requirements in the first tier and the inclusion of a second tier aligned with CoC Tier 2. Some MSs (Belgium and Sweden) proposal including an additional third tier. One MS (Germany) stressed the need to balance the burden for the industry against the potential savings of a second tier. MSs supported the inclusion of multiple voltage output EPS and information requirements on efficiency at 10% loading levels.

5.Impact Assessment process

An Impact Assessment is required when the expected economic, environmental or social impacts of EU action are likely to be significant. The initial IA for the review of the Regulation was carried out between December 2014 and November 2015 followed by an update between February and May 2018. The update represents an important overhaul that was needed for: (i) adding significant updates with regard to the datasets used and the technical analysis employed, and (ii) bringing the previous draft report in line with the most recent requirements regarding IA methodology. The present report is the result of these sustained updating efforts.

The data collected in the review study served as the starting point for the IA. It was supplemented with additional data and information that was collected and discussed by the consultancy team supporting the IA process with industry and other stakeholders, including detailed discussions with DIGITALEUROPE, which represents an important number of key primary load product manufacturers, as well as Siemens (power supply manufacturer) and Texas Instruments (power supply and component manufacturer).

Direct input requests were sent to the European Power Supply Manufacturer Association (EPSMA 5 ) and a range of international EPS manufacturers and companies involved in the production of semiconductors and integrated circuits for EPS including ST Microelectronics and Power Integrations. Consultation responses were obtained directly from Wahl (manufacturer of professional and home grooming products), Nokia (manufacturer of mobile phones, network products, etc.), Technicolor (manufacturer of media players, set-top boxes, etc.), Nintendo (manufacturer of game consoles) and EPS manufacturers Salcomp and FRIWO.

During this process, web-based and physical meetings were held with stakeholders and electronic questionnaires were circulated. The additional data and information collection focused on:

·Market data, efficiency and efficiency distribution data, and price data;

·Additional information on multiple voltage output EPS;

·Information on certification and testing costs;

·Technological developments and efficiency potentials;

·Possible SME (Small and Medium Size Enterprises) impacts.

All the information collected was duly analysed and factored into the IA process.

6.Key issues highlighted by stakeholders

6.1.Issues provided by stakeholders

Scope coverage: Direct and indirect operation EPS: Industry (via DIGITALEUROPE) requested full harmonisation with the US DOE requirements, which include a distinction between direct and indirect EPS and exclusion from scope of the indirect EPSs. Indirect EPSs cannot operate an end product without assistance from a built-in rechargeable battery, whereas the direct operation EPS can operate the end product (with rechargeable battery) both with and without the battery. The argument from the industry was that the EPS average efficiency is less important for this product type, as it is mainly used to charge the battery.

Conclusion: US DOE EPS requirements exclude indirect operation EPS because these EPSs are covered by the requirements on battery chargers and the exclusion is necessary to avoid double regulation. Exclusion of indirect EPSs in EU regulation could result in many EPSs for devices that include a rechargeable battery, such as mobile phones and laptops, being excluded from scope and thus creating a loophole. As there is no EU regulation on battery charges and therefore full alignment in the Regulation of the EPS definitions with the US DOE approach would result in a considerable reduction of scope and savings potential, would impact market surveillance and would require changes to the test method. This was fully explained in the memo provided with the second draft of the working document sent out on 16th April 2015.

Scope coverage: Power over Ethernet (PoE) injectors: The industry requests to clarify if PoE injectors (also called "PoE adaptors") are in scope of the regulation. Power over Ethernet is a technology for wired Ethernet local area networks that allows the electrical current necessary for the operation of device connected to the network to be delivered by the same Ethernet cables that transport the data rather than by separate power cords (minimising the number of wires and AC mains sockets required to install the network).

Conclusion: The current regulation does not specify which type of cable should connect the EPS to the primary load device. Therefore, an EPS that connects to a primary load product via an Ethernet cable should still be considered in the scope. The US DOE provides a similar interpretation of PoE injectors 6 .

However, PoE injectors with built-in circuitry for data switching, which is additional to the power injection to an Ethernet network, are considered not to be in the scope. This is because they could supply power to several devices and because the injector would also be a primary load built in the EPS. In cases where a separate EPS is delivering power to a detachable PoE injector, that EPS would be in the scope (because in such cases the PoE injector is considered a primary load device like any other device connected to an EPS).

Testing considerations: Impact of voltage difference of 115 V in the US vs. 230 V in the EU: Industry expressed concerns that the efficiency values in some databases may be based on measurements made at an AC input voltage of 115 V, 60 Hz (United States) rather than at 230 V, 50 Hz (European), resulting in the efficiency values varying when tested at the different voltage levels. According to DIGITALEUROPE, some EPSs may be more efficient at 115 V, and others may be more efficient at 230 V 7 .

Conclusion: The impact assessment has concluded that it is not possible to account for this variability. Furthermore, the dataset collected and used for this impact assessment ( www.digikey.com ) did allow for certain level of separation of data for Europe, because the dataset included "Region Utilized" to filter for products used in Europe. As such, the data modelled for this impact assessment analysed compliance with the EU CoC T2, implying that it was tested at European voltages.

Taking all these considerations into account it was concluded that a direct harmonisation with the US DOE requirement levels was sufficient. The different voltage levels used for testing are described in the relevant measurement standards, but should not affect the requirement levels (values) proposed in the draft Regulation.

Testing considerations: Adaptive EPS: Adaptive EPSs are capable of providing different output voltages (via the same output) – usually between two to four output voltage levels are available via the USB Power Delivery standard. Industry suggested that meeting the regulatory requirements at the same performance level across the different output levels could be challenging as the EPS would not be optimised for all levels of operation, but rather for the highest voltage output.

Conclusion: Rather than setting different requirement levels for adaptive EPSs (which would be inconsistent with the US DOE approach), such issues can be handled via revisions to the testing methodologies to describe how adaptive EPS can be tested for compliance with the requirements.

The US DOE test procedure requires that the average active-mode efficiency for adaptive EPS is measured by testing the unit twice – once at the highest achievable output voltage level and once at the lowest. The DOE subsequently granted a test procedure waiver for six specific adaptive EPS from four manufacturers (in 82FR34294 8 ), to allow the testing at the lowest voltage level to be carried in a modified way (i.e. at a lower power than the nameplate power) because that would reflect better the real-life usage of those EPSs.

The conclusion is that, while there is no need to change the current regulation, the European test standard EN 50563:2011 should be updated to cover adaptive EPSs in a similar way with the DOE test method. A transitional method should be included in the revised Regulation.

Testing considerations: Differences in test methodologies USA-EU: The Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 recommends using EN50563:2011+A1:2013 (referenced in the OJEU as a harmonised standard). The US test standard is “2011-06-01 Energy Conservation Program for Certain Consumer Appliances: Test Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies; Final rule.”

Conclusion: In terms of alignment, there are no substantive differences in approach between the EU and US. Both test standards are based on the original EPRI test method previously referenced under ENERGY STAR, and both use the loading points of 25, 50, 75 and 100%.

The EU test standard should be updated regarding:

·Testing of adaptive EPSs (see previous section);

·Testing of multiple output voltage EPSs;

·Testing at 10% load for information purposes.

Testing considerations: Output cable consistency: It was highlighted that the DC resistance of the output cable used during the measurement can have a major input on results. The EU test method EN50563:2011 specifies that the output measurements shall be made using the longest output cable provided by the organisation taking responsibility for the product, if one or more cables are provided. If no cable is provided, the measurements shall be made at the output terminals of the EPS.

Industry expressed concern about second tier requirements based on the EU CoC, where in order to reach compliance it may require to replace the output cable delivered with the EPS with one of less DC resistance. The gain would allow reaching compliance with the more stringent requirements, but the downside would be increasing the amount of copper used in the cables. This would both increase the production cost and increase the environmental impact.

Conclusion: No EU intervention is needed on this matter. The manufacturers can freely decide on what design changes are necessary to comply with the regulation. However, the potential losses of material efficiency were duly noted (and in fact constitute one more argument to not propose PO3 and opt for PO2 instead).

6.2.Conclusion on the key issues

The conclusion is that only the test standard EN 50563:2011 needs to be updated regarding:

·Testing of adaptive EPSs (see previous section);

·Testing of multiple output voltage EPSs;

·Testing at 10% load.

Regarding the other issues stakeholders have highlighted, guidance can be provided through an update of the guide for revised Regulation. However, no immediate changes to the Regulation need to be operated based on the above-mentioned issues.

7.Meeting minutes

Meeting minutes of the Consultation forums of 18 April 2013 9 and 29 May 2015 10 are included below.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY

Directorate C - Renewables, Research and Innovation, Energy Efficiency

MINUTES

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

External Power Supplies

Brussels, 18 April 2013 (10.00 - 15.30)

Participants: See “Attendance List" attached.

At the beginning of the meeting, the chairman gave an up-date on the Ecodesign/Labelling measures to be adopted in 2013 as well as on the Review of the Energy Labelling Directive and the on-going study on consumer understanding.

Turning towards the review of Regulation 278/2009 on External Power Supplies (EPS), the relevant aspects were presented and discussed in six blocks:

1) Context, saving potential and proposed procedure

2) Upgrade of existing requirements

3) New requirement for active efficiency at 10%-load

4) Extension of scope

5) Up-date/clarifications of definitions

6) Material efficiency

1) Context, saving potential and proposed procedure

The Commission services outlined the general context, in particular emphasising the conclusions drawn from the horizontal Consultation Forum of April 2012 to prioritise work and to opt for "fast-track"-reviews in cases for which only modest additional saving potential could be expected. The Commission services explained that the internal procedures would need to be fine-tuned according to the extent of the revision.

The review study which could rely on extensive data from different sources had concluded on a potential additional saving of just under 3 TWh by 2025 for the on-going review of EPS, spread across different improvement options. The study had also related the potential additional savings to the feasibility of the different improvement options (see table in Annex).

On that basis, the Commission services proposed to focus on the most important improvement options to reap most of the saving potential and to refrain from options that would involve major data collection efforts while not delivering substantial savings.

Feedback received: Stakeholders were generally in favour of a clear prioritisation and a comparably lean process given the moderate savings potential.

In the following, the Commission services presented the main issues to be discussed under the review and their proposals for the revision of certain elements.

2) Upgrade of existing requirements

For a possible up-grade of requirements established in Regulation 278/2009, there are two main references:

·the voluntary EU Code of Conduct (EU CoC ), developed by JRC (Joint Research Centre) together with industry, Member States and other stakeholders, for which "Version 5" of September 2012 had been sent to the stakeholders 11 ;

·the rule making that the US department of Energy (DOE) had proposed in March 2012 and reopened for technical input with a deadline of 28 May 2013.

The Review study had concluded that the requirements of the EU CoC reflected an appropriate level of ambition which would not bring about major additional costs; already more than half of the products on the market in 2012 fulfilled the Tier1-requirements while

90% of the 2012-models would need to be re-designed or re-sourced to meet the Tier2- requirements.

On that basis, the Commission had proposed in their working document to enhance the requirements along the EU Code of Conduct with more generous transitional periods and a third tier requiring a further improvement of 2.5% in efficiency, subject to review. The Commission services emphasised that while it would be useful to harmonise the EU- and US- requirements, it was difficult to judge at that stage where the US-process was heading for.

Feedback received:

DE felt that the Tier II requirements might be too ambitious but that more information from German manufacturers would be sought. IT criticised that the LLCCs had not been fully established and that the Commission's proposal was not well substantiated while NL stressed that LLCCs were of major importance for white goods but less for electronics. UK and IT

emphasised that they were not in favour of a third tier after revision as a matter of principle, while other representatives (BE, SE and ECOS) supported a third tier. Digital Europe/Philips

said that for some applications with infrequent usage (e.g. electric shavers) additional manufacturing costs could hardly be recovered. SI suggested using a wording which is more in line with the standard ("nameplate output power").

Regarding the harmonisation with DOE-rule making, BE pointed out that it was desirable but not absolutely necessary to align the requirements, more important was that measurements were done in the same way. Industry on the other hand, suggested studying the alignment with up-coming DOE-ruling on EPS.

Following that debate, the consultants presented a rough calculation of the LLCCs for mobile phone EPS based on information previously obtained from chipset manufacturers. The calculation showed that the savings achieved through the proposed up-graded requirements would outweigh the additional costs by far, even with quite a wide variation in electricity price.

3) New requirement for active efficiency at 10%-load

Requirements for active efficiency at 10%-load are included in the EU Code of Conduct but not in the DOE-rule making. The Commission presented advantages (relevant for future applications, particularly for products spending a lot of time in network standby) and disadvantages (lack of data, potentially additional costs, not relevant for all products) of such a requirement. The Commission services drew the conclusion that a 10%-requirement should not be implemented at this stage but be subject to the next review.

Feedback received: Most of the participants supported the Commission's view to have a requirement at a later stage also because the 10% loading level had not been specified in test standards to date. Against this background, the Consultation Forum discussed the introduction of an information requirement in order to have the data available in time for the next review. There were different opinions about when the information requirements should apply,

together with Tier 1 (NL) or together with Tier 2 (DE). ECOS advocated for a 10%-active efficiency requirement under the present Review.

4) Extension of scope

The Review study had outlined options to extend the scope of the regulation to do justice to new types of application and technological developments. The degree of complexity towards implementation and the impact on industry vary considerably across the options.

Possible sub-products to be included in the scope would be:

·Multiple voltage output EPS (EPS with a multiple output of different voltages). An inclusion of these devices would bring about a good additional saving potential; a requirement would be rather easy to implement. However, a testing method would need to be specified;

·High power EPS: There is only a small amount of products in the market, thus savings would remain minimal. A requirement at this stage would involve some need for research while DOE-data could be used at a later stage.

·(Low Voltage) Wireless chargers: There might be a high potential in the future, e.g. in the context of electric vehicles, while they play a minor role at the moment. It would require major research efforts to address them properly in the regulation.

The Commission proposed to include Multiple voltage output EPS in the scope of Regulation

278/2009 but to refrain from including High power EPS and Wireless chargers at this stage.

To include Multiple voltage output EPS in the scope, criterion b) of the regulation would need to be removed:

"(b) it is able to convert to only one DC or AC output voltage at a time;"

Feedback received: Stakeholders generally supported the Commissions' proposals.

5) Clarifications/ up-date of definitions

a) Clarifications to ensure that new product types are in the scope

The review should also be used to review and clarify the existing definitions to make sure that the wording is unambiguous also for more recent technological developments. This would be the case for the following types of EPS:

·Multiple voltage single output EPS (agile charging), i.e. EPS that can deliver output of different voltages and adapt to the primary load device's needs.

·USB-adaptor-plugs;

·EPS with integrated back-up batteries.

On this basis, the Commission proposed to give clarifications in the guidelines and possibly to slightly edit the EPS definition to clarify that these types of EPS are included in the scope.

Feedback received: Stakeholders generally supported the Commission's proposals.

b) Definition of Low voltage EPS

The definition of Low voltage EPS has a particular relevance as electric and electronic household and office equipment which is placed on the market with a low voltage external power supply is exempted from the scope of the Standby-Regulation 1275/2008.

Originally, this exemption had been established to keep mobile phones out of the scope that were per se deemed to be very efficient. In the meantime, more and more products are being developed that rely on a low voltage EPS but that might not be equally energy efficient. The Commission put this issue up for discussion.

Feedback received: DE and NL both argued for closing this loophole. However, while DE were in favour of exploring and addressing the issue along with the review of the Standby Regulation in 2016, NL argued that with an adaptation of the definitions (i.e. inclusion of an upper limit for the output current, see below), a good and relatively quick improvement could probably be achieved:

"low voltage external power supply’ means an external power supply with a nameplate output voltage of less than 6 volts and a nameplate output current greater than or equal to 550  and lower than 2000 milliampères)."

6) Material efficiency

The Commission services put the aspect of material efficiency up to discussion and outlined three possible approaches:

·a compatibility requirement;

·a requirement on detachable cables;

·a requirement on weight.

Regarding compatibility, the Commission stressed the fact that it has been argued that such a requirement would have disproportionate effects on a whole range of products. It also explained that the Commission intended to launch a new Memorandum of Understanding with industry that would address EPS for mobile phones but might extend to other mobile products.

For the detachable cable, the Commission pointed to risks linked to detachable cables (e.g. safety issues, wrong use, standardisation problems and additional costs to manufacturers for components and design rights).

For a requirement setting limits for weight, the Commission services stressed that the energy efficiency requirements of 278/2009 had already contributed substantially to reduce the average weight of the EPS and that more data was needed to judge the actual potential and the implications linked to a weight requirements. They proposed to tackle material efficiency in the next review process in three years' time and on the basis of a thorough assessment.

Feedback received: ECOS and ANEC/BEUC argued for a requirement on material efficiency and for action to decouple EPS from the primary load device; BE supported an information requirement on weight. DE requested to push standardisation through a mandate. NL

reminded of the opinion of the legal service and called upon industry to progress on the route of standardisation; the representative argued for an in depth-analysis and an information requirement on the parameter weight to allow for a requirement with the next review. IT refused to have a material efficiency requirement at this stage, stressing that this could also imply measurement problems. The representative also pointed to packaging issues linked to separate chargers.

CONCLUSIONS:

At the end of the meeting, the following conclusions were drawn:

1) Regarding the general approach and proposed procedure, there is general support to aim for a fast-track procedure and to focus on the revision options that would realise most of the potential.

2) Regarding the up-grade of existing requirements, there is general support for tightening the requirements. The EU Code of Conduct was acknowledged as a good reference; however, more information on impacts/costs, on the most recent modifications within the EU CoC- process and on parallel initiatives (DOE) is needed. To establish a third tier would require more preparation and research than possible within a fast-track process; this is why the review should involve only two tiers for which references do exist.

3) Regarding a new active energy efficiency requirement for 10%-load, there was a broad agreement not to have a requirement at this stage but to include an information requirement (timing to be determined).

4) Regarding the inclusion of products into the scope, there was support for the Commission's proposal to include Multiple output voltage EPS in the scope (with measurements to be specified). For High power EPS, it was decided to use data from DOE for the next review.

The potential of Wireless chargers should also be further explored under the next review.

5) Regarding the up-dating of definitions, there was general support for the Commission's proposal to provide for clarification that Multiple voltage single output EPS, USB-adaptor- plugs and EPS with integrated back-up batteries are in the scope of the regulation. For Low voltage EPS, the Commission proposed to look more deeply into the feasibility of an adaptation of the definition, and otherwise to address this issue in the context of the review for Regulation 1275/2008.

6) Regarding Material efficiency, it was concluded that the data material was not sufficient to include a requirement for weight in this review but that a strong message should be included in the revisions clause that material efficiency should be covered in the next regulation.

ATTENDANCE LIST Commission Services

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Germany Spain Finland France Hungary Ireland Italy

The Netherlands

Slovenia Turkey Sweden

United Kingdom

VMAS

SEA GREEN TREE ANEC / BEUC AVAYA

CECED

CLASP

DIGITALEUROPE

ECOS

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY

Directorate C - Renewables, Research and Innovation, Energy Efficiency

C.3 - Energy Efficiency

Brussels, 1 July 2015

ENER/C3/PH (2015)

MINUTES

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

Horizontal matters

Brussels, 29 April 2015 (10.00 – 16:00)

Participants: See “Attendance List” in Annexes

1. WELCOME AND PRESENTATION

The Chair welcomed the participants and indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss several horizontal topics regarding to Ecodesign and Energy Labelling.

The minutes of the previous Consultation Forum meeting on electric compressors were adopted without comments.

ECOS asked for an update on the state of play regarding the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures currently under development. The Commission services indicated that the update would be given under AOB.

2. REVIEW PROCESS OF THE DIRECTIVES

The Commission services (GROW) indicated that under the Circular Economy package high expectations have been placed on Ecodesign. In this context, the bundling the Ecodesign Working Plan 2015 – 2017 and a mandate on resource efficiency with the Circular Economy package is currently being discussed although no final decisions have been taken. The Circular Economy package (for which GROW and ENV are co-responsible) has two main elements; a review of waste legislation and a non-legislative part analysing the current barriers towards a more circular economy as well as sectorial initiatives. Member States and stakeholders are invited to take an active role in the process and participate in the stakeholder conference planned for 25 June.

The Commission services (ENER) added that the review studies on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling were finished last year and that under the 2015 Commission Work Programme a further review was taking place. The current thinking is that the Energy Labelling Directive should be reviewed while the Ecodesign Directive is still fit for purpose but a final political decision on how to move forward with the review process still needs to be taken.

DK considered that the review of the Energy Labelling Directive should not be included in the Circular Economy package to avoid further delays. This was supported by DE. ANEC/BEUC requested further information on whether there will be a link between the EU Energy Labelling revision proposal and the circular economy goals.

3. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON “MARKET SURVEILLANCE OF BIG PRODUCTS”

NL made a presentation on the challenges related to market surveillance for big products. It indicated that defining a big product needs to be done on a case by case basis and proposed different possible solutions (single test, on-site testing, etc.). A general approach should be discussed.

EVIA indicated that for big industrial fans, third party certification would add costs and that witness testing was already general practice. BE indicated that the preparatory studies should give more details about the testing facilities available in Europe. IT invited the Commission services to analyse how the issue is dealt with in other jurisdictions like AU or the US, adding that in the case of bigger products, if less products are going to be tested, to ensure a strong statistical basis maybe the product should be tested more than once. A specific study analysing the issue should be considered. EPEE mentioned that market surveillance is a general concern and that on-site testing for cooling equipment is not possible as the relevant ambient conditions cannot be ensured. SE supported IT and EPEE. ORGALIME asked for alignment regarding the market surveillance provisions between Ecodesign and other relevant pieces of legislation. EUROPUMP indicated that third party certification can lead to increased costs and longer times for putting new products on the market. EHI offered to share their experience regarding third party certification, which is mandatory under the heater regulations. ECOS wondered if a product registration database could help.

The Commission services summarized the discussion, indicating that a case by case analysis is appropriate and that a more detailed assessment of the issue would be considered.

4. DISCUSSION ON “PRODUCTS IN PRODUCTS”

The Commission services presented the discussion paper on “Ecodesign for energy-related products integrated into other energy-related products” that was submitted to the Consultation Forum before the meeting.

IT welcomed the discussion and suggested to split up the problem: i.e. what is the date of placing on the market and who is responsible for what? It also indicated that “double Regulation” (i.e. applying Ecodesign requirements to components integrated into products covered by other Ecodesign requirements) should be avoided and that using the most efficient components does not necessarily lead to the most efficient product. It also invited the Commission services to share the working document with ADCO.

DE shared the interpretation of the Commission provided in the discussion paper. BE supported this comment and added that the explanatory memorandum accompanying the current Regulation on fans already indicated that fans integrated into other products need to be covered in order to avoid loopholes.

NL also shared the interpretation given in the discussion paper but asked to be careful when comparing the “Blue Guide” with the Ecodesign Directive as the language is not always the same. The interpretation provided was positive for market surveillance authorities as it would allow them to address the original equipment manufacturer. Products covered can be tested independently and if the products integrated into other products would be exempted large loopholes would be opened. DK and SE supported this comment. ANEC/BEUC said that, as nobody can tell where a product will end up, if integrated products are not covered market surveillance would be hindered. ECOS also agreed on the importance of avoiding loopholes.

CECED said to be against overlapping Regulations for components integrated into other products. It claimed that it is not possible to carry out market surveillance for these components. Moreover, the current interpretation leads to additional work for assembling technical documentation as well as for the testing and measurements to substantiate this. For instance a motor into a washing machine would need to be tested twice, once alone and another time when integrated into the washing machine. Improving the efficiency of a part has in many occasions only marginal impacts and the effort to achieve these gains could have been placed somewhere else. They added that they do not see a loophole when exempting components intended to be integrated into an ErP regulated product, because it is also not considered a loophole to exempt a component intended to be integrated in a product that leaves the EEA. They asked the Commission to assess this point and substantiate the possibility of a loophole by evidence. EPEE and DIGITAL EUROPE also considered that products integrated into other energy related products covered by Ecodesign should be exempted from minimum requirements and that using the best components does not necessarily lead to the least life cycle cost for the whole product. ORGALIME said it was important to provide legal certainty to the market and asked for flexibility for innovation. EPEE also asked for an alignment of dates for the coming into force of the requirements within different regulations.

EVIA said that multiple Regulations are a reality, fans also use components such as bearings, cables, etc. that are covered by other pieces is legislation.

The Commission services concluded that while most Member States supported the interpretation given in the discussion paper, most industry stakeholders expressed different views. A case by case analysis is in any case needed based on the least life cycle cost as prescribed by the Ecodesign methodology. Further comments are welcome within one month after the meeting.

5. UPDATE ON REVIEW OF THE EPS REGULATION

The Commission services gave an update on the proposed approach for the review of Regulation

278/2009 on External Power Supplies. An updated working document had already been sent to the

Consultation Forum for written comments.

The Commission services propose to align the first tier with the ruling of the US government that was adopted in 2014 and to add a second stage in line with the second tier of the European Code of Conduct (timing January 2017 and July 2018). Moreover, the results of the additional assessment requested by industry and several Member States in the context of the EPS- Consultation Forum in April 2013 were presented.

In their comments, ANEC/BEUC and ECOS expressed their disappointment about the delay in the process. DE enquired about the MoU for a common charger and ongoing standardisation activities in this field. The Commission services pointed out that the MoU was foreseen to continue and that, if deemed necessary, legislative action could be considered under the Radio Equipment Directive. Digital Europe challenged the results of the impact analysis and criticised the Commission for proposing a second tier in line with the EU CoC instead of developing a common policy with the US. In response to this, NL stressed that the EU had made an important step in that direction but that the processes were entirely different and a fully harmonised policy would be difficult to achieve. The Commission services agreed with this and, in reply to Digital Europe's criticism on the impact analysis, emphasised the efforts that were made by the consultants to validate the data. On request, the deadline for written comments was extended to end of May. The next steps are the Impact Assessment and a Regulatory Committee by the end of 2015.

6. AOB

The Commission services gave an overview of the state of play of the different Ecodesign and

Energy Labelling files.

The Chair ended the discussion, thanked participants and requested any further feedback and data from stakeholders by 29 May 2015 at the latest.

ANNEX – Attendance List

Commission Services

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Germany

Denmark

Finland

France

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

The Netherlands

Portugal

Sweden

Slovakia

The United Kingdom

Norway

Switzerland

AMCA

ANEC/BEUC

CECED

CECIMO

CEN/CENELEC

CLASP

DIGITAL EUROPE

EEA

ECOS

EEB

EED

EHI

EHPA

EPEE

EPTA

EUNITED CLEANING

EUROCOMMERCE

EUROFUEL

EUROPUMP

EUROVENT

EVIA

HKI

LIGHTING EUROPE

ORGALIME

PNEUROP

VHK

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

This annex explains the practical implications of a potential ecodesign revised regulation, based on implementation of the preferred policy option (see Sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.4).

1.Practical implications of the initiative

Ecodesign implementing measures aim to create a level playing field in the EU as they establish requirements which need to be met by all products placed on the EU market, independently from the manufacturers' origin and production sites.

Harmonisation with the requirements in the United States represents an important means of reducing manufacturers' costs in the global as well as internal market. The adoption of further, more stringent requirements would remove barriers to market take up of more advanced performance EPS, but this needs to be balanced in terms of savings brought to the end-users and added burden to the industry.

The revised EPS Regulation would have the following key practical implications for manufacturers:

For EPS manufacturers:

1.Manufacturers would need to pull the non-compliant EPSs out from the EU market and redesign those products;

2.Manufacturers need to re-test and re-issue EC-declarations, technical documentations etc. to prove compliances;

3.Manufacturers need to carry out each test for several minutes longer to account for 10% loading measurement and for measurement the multiple-output voltage EPSs;

4.Manufacturers would need to publish information including efficiency and no-load power of EPS on websites and user manuals (where applicable);

5.Manufacturers would benefit from aligning requirements with other large markets (such as US) as they would only need to comply with one set of requirements, minimizing the testing and design improvement costs imposed by several different levels of requirements in different regions of the world.

For manufacturers of primary load product:

1.Manufacturers who buy in EPS, already frequently (1-2 times a year) will only have to redefine the EPS specifications provided to their EPS manufacturers, so no significant change from business-as-usual here;

2.Manufacturers need to re-test and re-issue EC-declarations, technical documentations etc. to prove compliance with the Standby Regulation of their products equipped with the newly sourced EPSs;

3.Manufacturers would need to publish information on their websites, to include the consumption in standby mode for their products equipped with the new EPSs.

The preferred option will result in substantial benefits for citizens, the society, manufacturers and wholesalers. The citizens will receive benefits in the form of saved electricity consumption leading to financial savings over the product life time. The society will receive benefits in terms of reduction of the GHG emissions. In addition, manufacturer and wholesalers will benefit from increased turnover and employment. The requirements will also imply some costs for consumers as increased product price, compliance costs for manufacturers to improve products and administrative costs for testing and certification. The estimated costs and benefits are described in more details below the summary tables.

2.Summary of costs and benefits

Overview of benefits total for the preferred option – PO2 Global alignment. All benefits that are quantifiable are direct benefits.

Certain caveats apply to the figures above. The financial savings per unit of product depend on the improvement (compliance) costs considered (see explanations in Section 6.4 and Annex 4, point 4). The model used assumes that additional costs incurred by the manufacturers are passed in totality to the end users through EPS purchase costs. Thus, the creation of jobs is only indicative and cannot be guaranteed in practice. The assumptions used in calculations are explained in Section 6.5 and Annex 4, point 9.

Overview of compliance and administrative costs (all costs are direct costs) compared to baseline are shown in the table below. Where no figures are mentioned, no extra cost are considered to apply.

The one-off costs presented above largely depend on the assumptions made with regard to additional costs for compliance (See Annex 4, point 4) and the mechanisms by which it is assumed that all these costs are passed to the consumers. The recurrent costs for testing are based on figures provided by the industry, that were averaged over different product types and the sales figures (see details in Section 6.6.2).

Annex 4: Analytical methods

General introduction

Availability of reliable data for the EPS sector is relatively poor. This is no central database for all the EPS sold in the EU, as they are usually bundled with primary products and sold together. EPS are used by a large variety of electronic and electrical products, therefore the statistical information on EPS are largely based on the primary product data, such as sales, stock and usage profile. This is also consistent with the method used by industry stakeholders 14 in their own modelling exercises.

Most of the data used in the model e.g. sales, output power, average power, active hours, no-load hours and lifetime etc. have been supplied and verified by industry stakeholders represented by DIGITALEUROPE. Global market research companies like IHS and Statista are a valuable source to confirm trends, in some cases, sales data were obtained through these companies for the primary products and therefore assumed the same sales for EPS bundled and sold together. Prices and price increase of EPS due to Ecodesign measures are based on stakeholder consultation and checked against online research. Employment impacts are derived from revenue per employee, again checked against reported revenue totals for the sector.

Efficiency distribution of EPS on the market are derived from datasets obtained from NRCAN (>4200 models) and website www.digikey.com (>2300 models), and checked against the estimates by industry stakeholders such as DIGITALEUROPE, Friwo, and component supplier’s expert.

For greenhouse gas emissions, the emission rate (in kg CO2 eq./kWh) does vary over the projection period in line with overall EU projections used in Ecodesign Impact Accounting 2016.

As regards the various monetary rates, all energy prices were obtained from PRIMES 2016 model (scenario REF2015f) and corrected with inflations rates from Eurostat. All product prices and costs are kept constant and expressed in Euro 2015.

Model structure

The impact assessment uses a stock model developed by Viegand Maagøe, the stock model is largely based on the same principles as the one developed by VHK in the context of the MEEuP 2005 methodology and then for MEErP 2011 and the VHK EIA-studies for the Commission as well as for over 20 impact assessments.

The model is built in MS Excel, using a 1-year time step. There is an Excel file for each policy scenario, having the structure as shown in Figure 19 below. This means that there is a total of five excel files used for this impact assessment: 0 BAU (without regulation), 1 BAU (with current regulation), PO2, PO3 and PO4. There is finally a summary excel file that collects the outputs from each scenario and compare the differences in energy consumption, GHG emissions, turnover employment in the industry, and user expenditure, with the 1 BAU scenario.

Figure 19 Model structure for each policy scenario

Source: Viegand Maagøe

1.Stock and sales

In order to estimate the total sales and stock of EPSs in the EU, it was necessary to define a few base cases of primary load products that are sold or operated with an EPS. Based on industry association DIGITALEUROPE’s inputs for review study 15 and technological development, ten base cases have been defined, see Table 30 .

Sales data were obtained for 2013 and 2017. For the periods in between sales data, the figures have been interpolated. Beyond 2017 sales were projected. Sales data for EPS in period of 2013 were derived from stock data outlined in the Fraunhofer / CEA report 16 combined with sales insights from the RPA report on the MoU on Harmonisation of Chargers for Mobile Telephones 17 . This data was provided and supported by industry stakeholders. Data that refers to the US market was adjusted to the EU situation using GDP per capita and population. In 2018, the sales data was updated with more recent data up to 2017 from Statista 18 and VGChartz 19 .

Annual sales beyond 2017 is projected based on population growth rate and assumptions on sales shift:

·To account for the technology development and the increasing uptake of, smartphones, tablets and other portable devices 20 , some of the mobile phones (base case a) sales are shifted to smartphones, tablets (base case b) and other portable devices (base case d) from 2017 and increasingly up to 2030. This is to account for more users replacing (non-smart) mobile phones with other technologies in the future.

·The emerging market of multiple voltage output EPSs, used e.g. for charging simultaneously notebook and mobile/smartphones, can be assumed to shift some of the sales from base case e) to f). As such, by 2030, 20% of the 30 W notebook computers EPS sales is shifted to multi-device universal chargers in all policy scenarios (PO2 – PO4). In BAU scenario, 50% of the 30 W notebook computers EPS sales is shifted to multi-device universal chargers (where this increased percentage was used for accounting for the current legislative loophole being exploited by EPS manufacturers).

·Lastly, 120 W notebook EPS (base case h) slowly shifts all its sale by 2030 to 65 W notebook EPS (base case g) due to better energy efficiency of products and improved battery technology, as well as the trend towards more USB Type-C connections compliant with the USB 3.1 standard that enable agile charging at higher voltages.

See estimated annual sales of EPS in the EU-28 in table below.

Table 30 Annual sales in million units for the base cases

The installed base (also known as stock) was calculated using a stock model which takes into account the product lifetime as the median, the standard deviation of lifetime, and a normal distribution of product survival. Life times can be found in Table 32 . See estimated total stock for EU-28 in table below.