Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment for the regulations laying down ecodesign and energy labelling requirements for electronic displays and repealing Regulations (EC) No 642/2009 and (EU) No 1062/2010

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

Electronic displays are among the heaviest consumers of electricity in households (after refrigeration appliances) and are subject to minimum energy efficiency requirements and labelling in most parts of the world.

Current EU ecodesign requirements for televisions and television monitors no longer ensure cost-effective energy savings. The current energy label no longer enables consumers to differentiate effectively between the appliances on the market and the information it provides no longer reflects real patterns of use.

Moreover, the scope of existing ecodesign and energy labelling regulations is unclear and there is some uncertainty as to whether some products are covered. An increasing proportion of devices on the market are not covered. A better level playing field for industry is needed and it is sometimes difficult for market surveillance authorities to assess the scope of the regulations for proper market surveillance.

Finally, electronic displays have a significant environmental impact beyond energy consumption and use materials that require specific attention at end of life: displays make up 75% of the weight of electric and electronic waste in the category of consumer electronics.

This revision will enable the EU to:

·achieve further cost-effective energy savings

·continue with effective ecodesign and energy labelling measures

·further pursue Circular Economy objectives.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

By 2030, compared with a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, the regulations reviewed could:

(i) save 39 TWh of electricity annually

(ii) cut greenhouse gas emissions by 13 Mton CO2eq/yr

(iii) reduce annual consumer spending by EUR 15bn and expenditure by administration and the service/business sector by a further EUR 2bn. These savings would be additional to those achieved through market forces and existing legislation.

Moreover, the regulations should maintain the business turnover and jobs in trade, industry and installation that would exist in 2030 under a BAU scenario.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

There is clear added value in establishing minimum energy efficiency levels and having an energy label at EU level. Without harmonised requirements at EU level, there would be a need for EU countries to establish product-specific minimum energy efficiency requirements at national level as part of their environmental and energy policies. This would undermine the free movement of products and increase the purchase costs for consumers. Before the ecodesign and energy label measures were implemented at EU level this was the case for many products.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Four policy options have been considered:

1.Policy option 1 – Baseline/BAU: Baseline scenario, with no change in the current regulations;

2.Policy option 2 – ECO: Update ecodesign energy efficiency limits, rescale the energy label, update the testing standard and the calculation method, extend the scope of the legislation and improve definitions, set circular economy requirements;

3.Policy option 3 – Ambitious: As for ECO, but including digital signage displays under labelling rules and limiting use of halogenated flame retardants in some parts;

4.Policy option 4 – Lenient: As for ECO, but setting ecodesign limits for ultra-high-definition/high dynamic range displays at a level with a factor 1.5 higher than high-definition/standard dynamic range (the ECO option uses a factor of 1.2).

PO3 brings most savings (31 TWh/yr by 2030 vs. BAU) while achieving all objectives.

Who supports which option?

The stakeholders did not comment directly on the options, even though they were developed as a result of extensive stakeholder consultation.

Member States and NGOs broadly support policy option 3, although NGOs would have liked minimum efficiency requirements to be more ambitious.

Industry supported the more lenient requirements for newer technologies to be introduced on the market that are set out in policy option 4.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

The net benefits of policy option 3 in 2030 versus BAU are expected to be:

-39 TWh/yr extra electricity savings

-13 MtCO2eq extra greenhouse gas emissions abatement

-EUR 15bn extra savings in expenditure on electricity for end-users.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 

The extra total administrative burden versus BAU is estimated at EUR 4m (one-off) and EUR 100 000 (annually), as a consequence of the application of the new Energy Labelling Framework Regulation and subdivided as follows:

-Suppliers: one-off EUR 3 900 000; annual EUR 90 000

-Dealers: one-off EUR 600 000

-EU budget: one-off EUR 90 000; annual EUR 9 000.

No additional costs are expected for ecodesign.

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?

Companies producing electronic displays are large Asian multinationals. The proposed measures are not expected to have any impact on the few European integrators of premium displays.

Will there be any significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

It is estimated that there will be no additional impact on the national budgets/administrations. The Member States would benefit from more cost-effective market surveillance, in particular through lower testing costs and documentation from the product registration database.

Will there be any other significant impacts?

Under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, from August 2018, 85% of electronic display waste shall be recovered and 80% recycled. The proposed measures will help meet these WEEE targets and help achieve objectives set as part of the move towards a circular economy, by improving dismantling and improving recycling, reuse and repair.

D. Follow-up

When will the policy be reviewed?

A clause stipulating that the policy will be reviewed five years after adoption is included.