We all know the A-G Energy Label rainbow. From the top, it starts with the A-rated green bar of a highly energy-efficient product, moves through the D-rated yellow bar of medium energy efficiency, and down to the E-rated red bar of energy inefficiency.
The labelling system provides us, the consumers, with a clear and simple indication of energy efficiency when we are deciding which model of fridge or washing machine to purchase. Provided this scale is revised frequently enough to remain consistent with the state of the market.
This is the big problem we are facing now. Without proper revision for more than a decade, the label for fridges is now misleading: 95% of the current models apply for the A class. So we are not at all certain to get one of the most efficient machines on the market when we go for the top letter. If the label does not discriminate between models anymore, what’s the point?
There are basically two ways of updating an energy label: revising the scale to make it tougher, or adding additional classes on top of the scale (such as A+, A++, etc.). For consumers and for the environment the simplest option is the most effective - the revision. Unfortunately manufacturers love the second option, because it’s a carrot without a stick: they can be rewarded with even better ratings and none of their current products gets downgraded.
This battle for the EU label revision has become a passionate story in the last months, as well as an institutional struggle between the European institutions. Last week, the European Parliament voted a report that supported the first option for revising the labels.
This means the European Parliament has rejected the industry-preferred way of introducing new classes on top of the A one. This opinion goes against recent propositions from the European Commission – supported by a majority of Member States and a strong industry lobbying – for the revision of energy labels for fridges and televisions. The Commission had proposed to introduce a new label with additional classes (A minus 20% and A minus 40% on top of A).
Claude Turmes, Luxemburgish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) said the appliance producers “may have qualified themselves for next year's 'Worst EU lobbying awards' for their misleading campaign”. But with this vote, “they fortunately failed to secure a system that would continue to grant an A grade efficiency label to virtually all of their products.”
This political deadlock can now only be solved through a negotiation between EU decision-makers, in the framework of the revision of the Directive for Energy Labelling. In the meantime, the European Parliament has managed to block the new label for televisions, but failed to do so with the proposed new label for fridges. Therefore, it is as if the European Parliament had sent two contradictory messages. This unprecedented political situation, due to the nature of these votes and the different numbers of votes required, should not hide the fact that a majority of MEPs has expressed strong doubts about the industry way.
And Environmental NGOs and the Cool Products Campaign insist that this political imbroglio should not delay the adoption of other important energy efficiency measures on products.