Energy Labelling has progressively become a must-have in the energy efficiency policy toolbox. When implemented with care, energy labelling presents a face that energy efficiency –also known as the invisible fuel- often misses. Energy labels help end-use consumers to make more informed decisions when purchasing a product, equipment or system. Fascinating too is to see how energy labels facilitate and shape market transformation strategies when combined for instance with fiscal or financial scheme. What lessons can be learned from the implementation of the European energy labels? What are the possible options for consolidating such high -visibility policy instruments in the future? The presentation will recall the conditions of the elaboration of the first European labels, discuss achievements and share views to reinforce existing schemes.

1. A brief history of
energy efficiency labelling
Benoit Lebot, Executive Director
14 January 2016 – IEADSM Webinar

2. IPEEC Members are Major Economies
Australia
Brazil
Canada
European
Union
France
Germany
India
Italy
Japan
Mexico
China
Republi
c of
Korea
Russian
Federation
South
Africa
United
Kingdom
United States
of America
www.ipeec.org Follow IPEEC on:

4. X3 more
electricit
y
>

5. CO2

6. Model ID
PHILIPS ARG 764
Capacity 140 l
Parameters
Annual Energy
Consumption
International Norms ISO 1234
371 KWh
-18 °C

9. Comprehension, Salience, Information & Appeal.

10. Comprehension, Salience, Information & Appeal.

11. Comprehension, Salience, Information & Appeal.

12. Comprehension, Salience, Information & Appeal.

13. Comprehension, Salience, Information & Appeal.

16. Energy
350
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard test results for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
200
80
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC

17. Energy
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Manufacturer
Model
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard test results for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC

18. Energy
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Manufacturer
Model
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard test results for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC
350
Logo
ABC
123
200
80
40
B
+

19. Energy
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Manufacturer
Model
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard test results for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC
350
Logo
ABC
123
200
80
40
B
+ =
Energy
350
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
B
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard testresults for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
200
80
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive94/2/EC

20. Clothes-Dryer
Energy
3.55
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
D
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/cycle
(Based on standard test results
for ‘dry cotton’ cycle
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is used
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Capacity (cotton) kg
Air vented
Condensing
5.0
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC
Drier Energy
1.26
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
C
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/cycle
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is used
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Cleaning Performance
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 50242
Dishwasher Label Directive 97/17/EC
Dishwasher
A B C D E F G
A: higher G: lower
Drying Performance A B C D E F G
A: higher G: lower
Standard Place Setting
Water consumption l/cycle
12
17
Dishwasher

21. Clothes-Washer
Energy
1.10
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
B
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/cycle
(based on standard test results for 60ºC cotton cycle)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is used
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Washing Performance
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 60456
Washing Machine Label Directive 95/12/EC
Washing
Spinning 76
A B C D E F G
A: higher G: lower
Spin drying Performance A B C D E F G
Capacity (cotton) kg
Water consumption l
5.0
Spin Speed (rpm)
58
1100
Washing
Performance
A B C D E F G
A B C D E F G
Rincing
Performance

30. Energy
350
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard test results for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
200
80
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive 94/2/EC

31. More than 80 Countries have adopted an
energy label (in 2013)

32. http://www.iea-4e.org/publications

34. Do labels work?

40. How to transform
markets?

41. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
% of
Market

42. % of
Market
Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0

43. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
Supply
0
% of
Market
In 2016

44. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
Supply
2016
0
Supply
2020
Objective
Market Transformation: A Model
% of
Market

45. % of
Market
Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
Setting a Minimum Energy
Performance Standard
MEPS
2018

46. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
Supply
Stock
% of
Market

47. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
Supply
0
% of
Market

48. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
Top 25%
Supply
% of
Market

49. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
Supply
0
% of
Market

50. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
% of
Market

51. Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0
A B C D E F G
% of
Market

52. % of
Market
Energy Efficiency Scale Less
Efficient
More
Efficient
0

53. Do labels work?

54. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
More Efficient Less Efficient
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

55. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
EU Market 1992
More Efficient Less Efficient
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

56. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
EU Market 1996
EU Market 1992
More Efficient Less Efficient
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

57. Signature analysis: EU refrigerators
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
190%
200%
210%
220%
230%
240%
Energy efficiency index (%)
Shareofmodels/sales
1999 (CECED)
1997 (CECED)
1994 Sales-weighted (ADEME)
1990-2 (GEA)
A B C D E F G

58. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
EU Market 1996
EU Market 1992
More Efficient Less Efficient
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

59. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
EU Market 1999
EU Market 1996
EU Market 1992
More Efficient Less Efficient
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

60. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A B C D E F G
Energy label class
Shareofmodels/market
EU Market 1999
EU Market 1996
EU Market 1992
More Efficient Less Efficient
EU Market 2003
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

62. AnnualMarketShare%
1999: MEPS
Transforming the Equipment Market
Impact of EU Label on Market of Cold Appliance

63. © by GfK MS, www.gfkms.com - Italy - SDA-MDA De
10 Ctr.1,5
30,3
26,3
22,2
6,3
5,3
7,2
GB D F I E
14,8
24,4
39,4
8,2
5,5
7,7
3,1
52
34,5
9,5
21,8
31
23,7
14
2,5
7,1
25,3
11,6
23,1
5
17,3
2
15,7
2
12,2
23,3
14,4
22,2
8,6
17,4
P B NL A S2,1
9,9
16,5
3,8
12,7
54
52,1
20,5
16,1
2,6
6,8
14,1
73,5
6
4,1
1,7
39,3
37,1
10,6
1,8
2,2
7,8
6
65,4
16,7
2,5
7
2,3
Energy Class A+
Energy Class A
Energy Class B
Energy Class C
Energy Class D
Energy Class E
Energy Class F
Others
European Market for Domestic Freezers in 2002

64. © by GfK MS, www.gfkms.com - Italy - SDA-MDA De
10 Ctr.
58,7
19,7
11,7
10
GB D F I E
49,3
33,2
9,5
8
84,6
10,9
3,7
57,5
24,4
10,9
7,2
48,2
9
33,8
9
28,2
20,1
13,6
38,1
P B NL A S
28,4
17,8
20
33,8
88,4
9,3
1,5
95,3
3
62,9
25,1
7,2
4,8
60,5
25,6
9,5
4,3
ENERGY-A
ENERGY-B
ENERGY-C
Others
WASHING MACHINE
Importance of Energy Classes
2002

65. Energy
Review of ecodesign & energy label

66. Energy
350
More efficient
Less efficient
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
B
Manufacturer
Model
Logo
ABC
123
Energy consumption kWh/year
(Based on standard testresults for 24h)
Actual consumption will
depend on how the appliance is
used and where it is located
Further information is contained
in product brochures
Fresh food volume I
Frozen food volume I
200
80
40
(dB(A)re 1 pW)
Noise
Norm EN 153 May 1990
Refrigerator Label Directive94/2/EC
2010

69. Energy
Next steps
• European Parliament and
Council discuss proposal
• Council position on 26 November
maintained and further detailed the
database
• Parliament position in May 2016
• Commission to set up database
• Envisaged application January 2019

71. Beyond the label

72. Beyond the label
E
F
D
E
A
G
D
C
A
C

73. Suggestion: make mandatory the energy category on all commercial support.

74. Car Labeling
In Europe
G
C

75. G

76. A

77. Energy Label also used
for Buildings
B
F
D

81. www.display-campaign.org

83. Labelling can also be applied to…

84. Labelling can also be applied to…
E
F
D
E
A
G
D C A
C

88. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market
2. Information & Labelling
R&D
3. Stimulate Research & Dev.
4. Set MEPS
5. Market Pull (DSM, CDM, Public
Procurement, $ incentives)

89. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market

90. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market

91. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market
2. Information & Labelling

92. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market
2. Information & Labelling
R&D
3. Stimulate Research & Dev.

93. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market
2. Information & Labelling
R&D
3. Stimulate Research & Dev.
4. Set MEPS

94. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofMarket
More Efficient Less Efficient
5 Steps to Transform a
Market
1. Understand the Market
2. Information & Labelling
R&D
3. Stimulate Research & Dev.
4. Set MEPS
5. Market Pull (DSM, CDM, Public
Procurement, $ incentives)

95. Appliance Energy Efficiency
Standards in the US
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
US DOE EE Investment Energy Savings Net Savings
$2/Home
$150/Home

96. Appliance Energy Efficiency
Standards in the US
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
US DOE EE Investment Energy Savings Net Savings
$2/Home
$150/Home
$600/Home
$450/Home

97. Benefits of International Policy Co-
ordination
• Greater Market Transparency
• Reduced Costs for Product Testing & Design
• Enhanced Prospects for Trade & Technology
Transfer
• Reduced Cost for developing Government &
Utility Efficiency Programs

98. Possible Areas for International
Cooperation
• Energy Efficiency Labels for DC Appliances
• SEAD Super Efficiency Appliance Deployment
Programme
• Energy Efficiency in Networked appliances
• Information websites on products:
• www.topten.info
• www.enervee.com
• …

99. http://www.superefficient.org

100. http://cda.iea-4e.org/

101. www.topten.info

102. www.enervee.com

103. QR Code: a great opportunity for
international collaboration on energy
efficiency Product Policy

104. Inefficient Products to Museum
All over
the World!

105. Thank you !
www.ipeec.org
benoit.lebot@ipeec.org
Follow IPEEC on: