EC Energy Star conference, Frankfurt, 22 April



Minutes by R. Kemna, VHK (Rapporteur):

EC Energy Star conference, Frankfurt, 22 April

Participants: See Annex

Presentations/lectures: See eu- (Downloads section: *. ppt files)

Session 1: EC/EPA

Chair: Brisaer; Lectures: Werring (EC), Hershberg (EPA)[1]

Questions & Answers & Statements :

Q (Denruyter, WWF): Procedures, who should be more pro-active, MS (Member States) or EC (European Commission)?

A (Werring, EC): EC could consider putting in more resources, but there should be signals from MS that it is needed and supported.

S (Hoehn, IBM/EICTA): How can response by MS on Criteria setting be improved?

Q (Munzinger, Imtech/UK Market Transformation Programme):

1. What to do with low rate of PM (Power Management) enabled devices?

2. What is the role of testing and (3rd party) checking of data?

3. If not Energy Star, what are the alternatives?

A (Hershberg, EPA):

ad 1. Hope to improve on that. Now, e.g. for copiers only 20% is PM enabled. Flexibility will be key issue.

ad 2. In the past we relied fully on self-registration and self-policing by industry. Now EPA tries to tighten up, e.g. buying products and test ourselves, however self-policing largely satisfactory.

A (Werring, EC):

ad 3. Options are:

a. We do nothing, so E* is pulled by US, Japan, etc. Not a good option, because we should want to be involved and have a say, especially when CO² emissions are on EU territory.

b. EU Energy Label (Directive 92/75/EEC), but procedures for adoption of measures are slower than for modifying the E* criteria and scope is limited to domestic appliances.

c. Minimum Efficiency Standards (eco-design requirements), but addresses just lowest part of the market and speed of adopting measures not appropriate for fast moving market of IT equipment.

So, for this product group ES is the most effective and pragmatic options and EU, with large market, has a clear role to play.

Q (...): What new product criteria can we expect?

A (Hershberg, EPA): Imaging equipment (ongoing, deadline 2005), computers (deadline 2006). Outside office equipment: Set-top boxes, Power supplies.

S (Harrison, Imtech/UK Market Transformation Programme): Active industry involvement is big plus of E*. Procedures could benefit from expert working groups established in past, but need more co-ordination than in past. Overall, UK is very optimistic about E*.

Q (Warin, ON Semiconductor): What will be done about the problem of the power factor correction for devices >75 W? (reference to IEC standard)

A (Hershberg, EPA): We are aware of the problem and working on that. Developments at Apple on high-efficiency power supplies relevant in this context.

A (Siderius, Novem NL): Also EU experts aware and is a solvable problem (solutions worked out.

Q (Hoehn, IBM/EICTA ): Why does US/EPA not look at EU developed criteria, e.g. power supplies. Also: Good studies in Switzerland for UPS and servers are out there to be used. Why not use them?

A (Hershberg, EPA): We did look at EU (industry proposal) but later --after talking to China, Taiwan, Canada-- we found we could do better: E.g. more savings than in the CC (Code of Conduct). But EU and other sorts of sources were used.

A (Werring, EC): We know CC could be more ambitious. In fact, in the discussions about the proposed ‘Ecodesign’ directive, the product group of power supplies is a prime candidate. About Switzerland: It is not part of EU and even not of European Economic Area. Formal involvement of Switzerland would require the same kind of international agreement as US-EC. Other than that, we are of course happy to use any information from anywhere, including the Swiss.

S (Stinglwagner, D ministry, reacting on lecture Werring): Germany has been one of the MS actively involved in the ECESB (EC Energy Star Board) and German experts have always participated in technical working groups. Also Dena (Deutsche Energie Agentur) is working on promotion in Germany. Suggestion: the Commission should be more severe with passive MS, assuming consent when they don’t react to drafts. Having said that, there have been some frictions (wastes of time, double work, etc.), but the biggest problem is political: When EC-US Agreement was discussed in European Council, it was weighed against passively taking on the E* criteria, e.g. like Japan. We decided not to do that, because we wanted to play an active role with the aim to have a real quality label with only 25% complying, instead of the >80% today. But except for monitors, we are still today at this >80% of qualifying products and this does not motivate MS to support E*.

A (Werring, EC): Not against assuming consent of passive MS, but the procedures are laid out in such a way that –if not with the ECESB or working groups—the MS can always create problems further down the line if they so wish. On the subject of the quality label, criteria are set at a good level however for this fast moving sector, progress is faster than present procedural time lags for revising the specifications. Anyway such rapid progress should be welcome instead of generating frustration. We should elaborate in discussions today.

S (Kolb, dena D): Perhaps differentiate between criteria (definitions, etc.) and values?

S (Denruyter, WWF): Quality label is very important for us. We cannot recommend a label with >80% compliance.

S (Siderius, NL): I will show in my lecture later on, that –given the lead times—a sort of minimum label is the only realistic option. If the guideline of 25% is taken at the time of the drafting the revised specifications, it will –because of the reaction of the industry and the dynamics of this sector—in most cases end up being 65% by the time the criteria are implemented. That’s not in itself bad, but we have to recognize this and –for more ambitious goals—use the derived instruments like the best in the public database.

S (Salaets, ITI): Don’t know the exact situation here, but in the US there is typically a response time for the industry (=time between announcement and implementation) of 1 year.

XX

Session 2: MS and NGO

Chair: Werring, Lectures: Kolb (dena), Siderius (Novem), Denruyter (WWF)

Questions & Answers & Statements :

S (Hoehn, reacting on Siderius lecture): Marketing of E* should be task of the policy makers, because if they want industry involved: The industry reacts on the market.

Q (Hoehn, reacting on Kolb): You say procedures should be faster, but why didn’t industry get a reaction on their imaging equipment proposal?

A (Kolb, dena): Because though the effort by industry was welcome, we didn’t like the proposal and liked the EPA proposal more.

A (Siderius, NL): Regarding marketing: We should strike a balance.

Q (Bush, “Topten”, CH): In our database with data from Swiss importers we found significant differences with EC Energy Star database. Reason for concern.

A (Werring, EC): It is clear that the database needs to be waterproof. Quality will be further improved.

S (Stinglwagner, Ministry, Germany): There should be appropriate procedures for market surveillance. When data are incorrect it is to be reported to the Commission, who should then contact the manufacturer, etc..

S (Anglade, Ademe, F): France has a long history in dealing with energy efficiency of office equipment and has always supplied technical expertise, although acquisition of data has always been problematic. That is why we have made considerable efforts in measuring campaigns.

At the moment we have little resources; in truth, we had hoped for a quicker time plan for EC Energy Star. Four years ago we were ready... We work with Energy Star, but there is still a lot of work to be done, e.g. in the field of PM enabling rates. We need a clear roadmap. Also the procedures for setting criteria could be improved; not all consultation work can be done through e-mail. As far as threshold values for Energy Star are concerned –considering the long lead times between setting the specs and their implementation—we believe they should be set at 15% and not 25%. As far as the database is concerned, we support the Swiss point of view. Regarding the promotion of MFD’s (Multi Functional Devices) as mentioned by Mr. Werring: We have done all this in the past, so there is nothing new here.

S (Booth, Lexmark, US): Regarding Quality Label (25% market) or Not: At the moment private consumers are not asking for Energy Star label on the product. There is no demand, so an elite label just adds to the costs, which –in turn—creates big resistance with industry. Also there is the effect that an elite label tends to be “low-featured”, because features increase the energy consumption.

Session 3: Industry

Chair: Hoehn (IBM/EICTA). Lectures: Salaets (ITI), Scheijgrond (Epson/EICTA), Schoenmakers (Philips/EICTA).

Questions & Answers & Statements :

S (Baynes, Apple, F): Concern about big buyers, where E* has succeeded to get in, being uncomfortable with an “exclusive/elite” E* label. Second concern is about the categories: They would have to be much more specific, therefore there have to be much more e.g. example of workstations needing to be a separate categorie. With the “inclusive” label of today the categories are OK

S (Stinglwagner, Min., D): OK, but we still have the problem that the European Council wanted a Quality Label. We face the fact that we have a dynamic sector on one hand and long bureaucratic lead times on the other making it neigh to impossible to have 25% at the time of implementation. The programme –with the public database and all that-- is useful and so we could go along the lines of a more realistic/pragmatic approach (‘ Versachlichung’ ).

Q (Duscha, Ifen, consultant for UBA, D): Perhaps we could have two types of Energy Star: Gold and Silver?

A (Salaets, ITI, US): We are for a top-10 or 20% approach e.g. for procurement, but against a bi-forkation. A bi-forked label could suggest that the Whole Product, not just the energy side of it, is better. Also it would create more confusion with the global consumers.

Session 4: Conclusions

Chair: Werring (EC). Panel: Hershberg (EPA, US), Hoehn (IBM/EICTA), Brisaer (EC).

____________________________________________________________

Statement 1: 25 or 65%?

Q (Booth, Lexmark, US): The question is not only 25 or 65%, but at which stage?

Q (Hoehn, EICTA/ IBM): Let’s not forget that our aim is not to have a label; or aim is to save energy. It could be 25% at the start, but not when coming into force.

S (Brisaer, EC): The 25% is guidance at the point of setting the specifications.

S (Hershberg, EPA, US): We recognize the problem with the long lead times. Question is: “How exclusive?”. We should strike a balance.

S (Schaeppi, EVA,. AT): For us the decision is clear. We consider that in practice E* is more of a minimum efficiency label.

S (Siderius, Novem, NL): It looked like we had a choice, but we don’t! This is not in itself a Bad Thing! We should recognize this and look for improvement in the other items the E* programme brings, e.g. the public database.

Q (Denruyter, WWF): We need to find an alternative for the quality label for us to support. We cannot support just a label with 80-90% compliance.

A (Kemna, VHK): For example, you could publish a top 10% of the database on your website. Or you can make simple electronic or printed tables as abstracts of the database, listing products you support. This has been done before, e.g. by consumer associations, energy agencies or utilities.

S (Meier, IEA): a quality label requires constant upgrading given the dynamics of the sector. Therefore I would advocate a Tier 1 and 2 level, different threshold levels based on the same methodology, as has been proposed with monitors.

S (Ritter, EVA, AT): The Public Database could give us the best 25% at any moment.

S (Kolb, dena, D): Agrees, because we need this quality approach, one way or another.

Statement 2: Procurement / Database / Top x %

S (Hoehn, EICTA/ IBM): Agrees with approach, but pre-condition is quality of the database.

S (Brisaer, EC): Agree that credibility of the database is key. We will work on correct input and monitoring procedure; cooperation of industry is fundamental.

S (Hershberg, EPA, US): The database offers a compromise; we get the 25% quality from the database, but it has to be waterproof. Could be done and we are willing to invest in quality.

Q (Halpin, SEI, IE): Want to point out risks on the consumer side. The best in the database should be locally available, otherwise people just get frustrated picking items that can’t be bought. Also big purchasers should have a guarantee that the data are >99% correct.

A (Kemna, VHK): We have and will continue to work on making the database as local as possible to avoid that type of frustration. Regarding the big purchasers, also there we are working to make the data as accurate as possible. Having said that, there are also --in a tender procedure -- rules that the purchaser has to set for the supplier. Finally, and this goes for business (= not public) purchasers, the database can be used in many ways e.g. to make a pre-selection of 4 or 5 suppliers that are then requested to make detailled –also in the sense of energy specs—offers.

S (Salaets, ITI): I have heard the term “minimum efficiency” mentioned before: This does not have to be a negative term, because there are several other facts involved.

S (Denruyter, WWF): Database has to be extremely user-friendly. A good dealer-programme is also very important, especially in the light of public procurement, where the dealer –in addition to the site etc.-- can give guidance.

S (Hoehn, IBM/EICTA): For the record, we already think that what Kemna has shown yesterday is a huge step. This could be the way forward as far as a database is concerned. The industry was impressed.

Statement 3: Pro-active involvement

S (Hoehn, IBM/EICTA): We have some mixed feelings about the procedures and I think there is a need for a roadmap and better co-ordination. The preferred strategy is to have technical people discuss the items for preparing ECESB meetings.

S (Brisaer, EC): Two points: 1. The present resources: If we get a clear signal from MS that this is the way to go, then we could apply for more resources. And in that respect outside support is important. 2. It is a continuous process of balancing/compromising and we have to live with that. E.g. the suggestion of pre-ECESB technical working groups is opposed on the principal by a Member State who want to discuss everything plenary; this makes it very difficult for us.

S (Hershberg, EPA, US): Industry contacts and input are very important for us.

S (Scheijgrond, Epson/EICTA): Perhaps the Commission could take on board national experts.

S (Siderius, Novem, NL): As I pointed out in my presentation, one combined EC-US management entity and no separate discussions would streamline the negotiations.

S (Brisaer, EC): What Siderius suggests already takes place up to a point. In the EC-US agreement the perception is, that each management entity goes its way in consulting its stakeholders and then –in the end—we have a negotiation process. This is not the reality. It is a continuous co-operative process. But co-ordination can be improved (dates for launching/analysing consultations, shared working documents...).

S (Werring, EC, chair): Let me try to make some tentative conclusions:

Despite criticism, Energy Star seems the best way forward for this product sector.

A maximum 25% market share at the time of the conception of new criteria

seems an appropriate guideline, but --given the lead times on one hand and

the dynamics of the sector-- this means that we have to accept that the

market might have moved to much higher shares at the time of implementation.

For more ambitious procurement and promotion, selecting from the top 10-20%

of the public database, which is an integral spin-off from the Energy Star

programme, seems the best instrument. A condition is, that we will all work

hard to make this database and the underlying definitions/criteria

absolutely 'waterproof'. I thank the organisers VHK and above all you, the

participants, for making this a very successful conference.

Rapporteur: R. Kemna, VHK, 27 April 2004

Comments to: r.kemna@vhk.nl

Follows:

ANNEX

List of participants

| |

|List of Participants |

| |

|EC Energy Star Conference |

|Frankfurt, Germany |

|22 April 2004 |

|  |

|Surname |Init. |Affiliation |Phonenumber |e-mail address |

|Andersen |B. |EFTA |+32-2-2861730 |ban@efta.int |

|Anglade |A. |Ademe |+33-493957900 |alain.anglade@ademe.fr |

|Baynes |A. |Apple Computers Inc. |+33-680643228 |baynes.a@euro. |

|Bazlen (23rd) |T. |Hewlett-Packard GmbH |+49 7031 1458456 |thomas.bazlen@ |

|Beer |H. |SWICO |+41-445-3800 |heinz.beer@swico.ch |

|Booth |J. |Lexmark International |+1-98592324469 |booth@ |

|Brisaer |A. |European Commission |+32-2- 296 82 36 |andre.brisaer@cec.eu.int |

|Brunner |M. |Fed. Min. of Economic |+41-7110-3058 |matthias.brunner@bmwa.gv.at |

| | |Affairs &Labor | | |

|Bush |E. |Bush energie Gmbh |+41-81-2526364 |bush@spin.ch |

|Chae |Y. |Samsung Electronics CO |+82-31-200-4593 |ym.chae@ |

| | |Printer Div | | |

|Chung |K.B. |Samsung Electronics CO |+82-31-200-2140 |kbchung@ |

|Duscha |M. |Ifen Institut Heidelberg |+49-6221-4767-0 |duscha@fb5.ifen.de |

|Elburg, van |M. |VHK |+31-15-2755772 |m.van.elburg@vhk.nl |

|Fischer |T. |Sony International (Europe)|+49 711 5858 391 |fischer@sony.de |

|Goos |A. |Ministry of Economic |+31-70-3797951 |a.m.t.c.goos@minez.nl |

| | |Affairs | | |

|Govers |M. |Oce Technologies |+31-77-3592846 |mgo@oce.nl |

|Halpin |T. |Sustainable Energy Ireland |+353-1-8369080 |tom.halpin@sei.ie |

|Härkönen |H. |Motiva |+358-9-8565-3109 |heikki.harkonen@motiva.fi |

|Harrison |B. |Intertek/ UK mtprg |+44 1908 857777 |bob.harrison@ |

|Hemming |M. |Xerox Limited |+44-1707353414 |malcom.hemming@gbr. |

|Hershberg |C. |US EPA |+1-202-343-9120 |Hershberg.Craig@epamail. |

|Hoehn |R. |IBM Germany |+49-711-785-5319 |hoehn@de. |

|Hoffmeyer |D. |ICF Consulting |+1-202-862-1234 |dhoffmeyer@ |

|Holst |M. |Swedish Consumer Agency |  |mikael.holst@kov.se |

|Huyben |M. |Oce Technologies |+31-77-3593053 |mhu@oce.nl |

|Kemna |R. |VHK |+31-15-2755770 |r.kemna@vhk.nl |

|Kieber |S. |Office of Economic Affairs |+423-2366432 |silvan.kieber@avw.llv.li |

|Kimber |S. |Brother International |+44-161-931-2510 |steve.kimber@brother.co.uk |

| | |Europe | | |

|Kolb |S. |Deutsche Energie-Agentur |+49-30-726165675 |kolb@deutsche-energie-agentur.de |

|Landstra |P. |Canon Europe N.V. |+31-20-5458388 |patrick.landstra@canon- |

|Marneffe |B. |Lexmark |+33-0158-136150 |beatrice.marneffe@lexmark.fr |

|Maxwell |Ch. |European Commission |+32-2-2961836 |christopher.maxwell@cec.eu.int |

|Meier |A. |IEA |+33 1 40 57 6685 |alan.meier@ |

|Munzinger |M. |BRE / UK mtprg |+44-1923664737 |munzingerM@bre.co.uk |

|Nilsson |A. |TCO Development |+46-8-7829187 |arne.nilsson@tco.se |

|Ofverholm |E. |STEM |+46165442000 |egil.ofverholm@stem.se |

|Okamoto |Y |Energy Conservation Center |+81-3-5543-3330 |okamoto@eccj.or.jp |

|Presutto |M. |ENEA |+33-332-788217 |presutto@ispra-enea.it |

|Ritter |H. |E.V.A. |+43-1586152435 |ritter@eva.ac.at |

|Ruyter Den |J.P |WWF European Policy Office |+32-27400927 |jdenruyter@ |

|Salaets |K. |ITI |+1-202-626-5752 |ksalaets@ |

|Scarborough |R. |Ministry of Petroleum and |+47-2224-6370 |rsc@oed.dep.no |

| | |Energy | | |

|Schäppi |B. |E.V.A. |  |schaeppi@eva.ac.at |

|Scheijgrond |J.W. |Epson Europe |+31-20-3145328 |jan_willem_scheijgrond@epson- |

|Schoenmakers |T. |Philips |+31-40-273-6640 |theo.jm.schoenmakers@ |

|Sera |T. |Ricoh Europe |+31-20-5474454 |tsera@ricoh- |

|Siderius |H.P |Novem B.V. |+31-30-2393609 |h.siderius@novem.nl |

|Siebert |I. |Ricoh Europe |+31-20-5474145 |ISiebert@ricoh- |

|Stinglwagner |W. |Fed. Min. of Economic |+49-228-615-2859 |wolfgang.stinglwagner@buwa.bvnd.de |

| | |Affairs &Labor | | |

|Tiggers |R. |VHK |+31-15-2755755 |r.tiggers@vhk.nl |

|Warin |Ch. |ON Semiconductor |+335-64611402 |christophe.warin. |

|Werring |L. |European Commission |+32-2 2966451 |Luc.Werring@cec.eu.int |

|Yawata |K. |Epson/ JEITA |+81 263 53 5440 |yawata.kenichi@exc.epson.co.jp |

-----------------------

[1] Notes to lecture EPA:

ES --> saving, e.g. monitors from 58 TWh (without E*) to 34 TWh (with E*)

Criteria: work on computers starts summer 2004 (end 2006), power supplies deadline 2005.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download