Work
07.May 2009 - 00:00
Incandescent Lamp Directive
The Commission’s ‘Incandescent Lamp Directive’, whereby a watts per lumen limit (that is to say, an energy efficiency requirement) is to be laid down for light bulbs, has prompted much debate in Finland, with arguments being put forward for and against the directive.
The advocates say that withdrawing the worst electricity-guzzling bulbs from sale will, reduce electricity consumption in the EU area by an estimated 40 terawatt-hours a year; carbon dioxide emissions will fall by 15 billion (15 000 million) tonnes; and it has also been calculated that consumers’ annual electricity bills will be EUR 5 10 billion lower: that being the case, the advantages are undeniable.
Those who oppose the directive, however, are wondering — rightly — about the extent to which reduced heat from, say, lighting energy might translate into higher heating energy consumption in northern Member States. They maintain that incandescent lamps and enhancing the energy savings achievable by other appliances cannot be lumped together in the same discussion from a climate protection perspective, given that reducing energy in stand-by mode, increasing the energy efficiency of domestic appliances, especially refrigeration equipment, and similar measures invariably lower emissions as well and hence constitute environmental action, whereas swapping incandescent lamps for energy-saving light bulbs is not certain to reduce emissions across the board.
The question that they are asking is whether energy consumption will in fact be lowered, bearing in mind that incandescent lamps also generate heat, and that would have to be replaced by other means.
Is the Commission sure that the calculated total saving in emissions will really be as great as has been claimed? If, in practice, the saving falls short of expectations, does the Commission have a ‘Plan B’ to dispel possible adverse effects of the mandatory directive? Does it have watertight evidence that getting rid of light bulbs will enable emission volumes to be reduced in proportion to the quantity of energy used for lighting? Can the Commission say why the directive has not laid down rules on a country-by-country basis and has thus failed to allow for the fact that the benefits of using incandescent lamps may vary from one region to the next? To what extent, according to the Commission’s calculations, will the Incandescent Lamp Directive increase oil-fired heating energy requirements in Finland, and what will be the impact in terms of emissions?
7 May 2009
Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission
The Honourable Member is referred to the answer provided in response to Question E 1090/09(1) by Mr Mote as regards the heat replacement.
An essentially aim of implementing measures of the Ecodesign Directive (2005/32/EC)(2) is to ensure the free movement of goods through harmonised requirements that are the same for all products within the scope, wherever they are placed on the market in the EU.
As the product requirements and the functionalities are the same, a separate impact assessment for each and every Member State was not carried out. In addition, during the preparatory process, which had input from stakeholders all over Europe as well as national administrations, no significant issue was raised about varying impacts of using certain lighting technologies from one region to the other.
(1) Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
(2) OJ L 191, 22.7.2005.
The Commission’s ‘Incandescent Lamp Directive’, whereby a watts per lumen limit (that is to say, an energy efficiency requirement) is to be laid down for light bulbs, has prompted much debate in Finland, with arguments being put forward for and against the directive.
The advocates say that withdrawing the worst electricity-guzzling bulbs from sale will, reduce electricity consumption in the EU area by an estimated 40 terawatt-hours a year; carbon dioxide emissions will fall by 15 billion (15 000 million) tonnes; and it has also been calculated that consumers’ annual electricity bills will be EUR 5 10 billion lower: that being the case, the advantages are undeniable.
Those who oppose the directive, however, are wondering — rightly — about the extent to which reduced heat from, say, lighting energy might translate into higher heating energy consumption in northern Member States. They maintain that incandescent lamps and enhancing the energy savings achievable by other appliances cannot be lumped together in the same discussion from a climate protection perspective, given that reducing energy in stand-by mode, increasing the energy efficiency of domestic appliances, especially refrigeration equipment, and similar measures invariably lower emissions as well and hence constitute environmental action, whereas swapping incandescent lamps for energy-saving light bulbs is not certain to reduce emissions across the board.
The question that they are asking is whether energy consumption will in fact be lowered, bearing in mind that incandescent lamps also generate heat, and that would have to be replaced by other means.
Is the Commission sure that the calculated total saving in emissions will really be as great as has been claimed? If, in practice, the saving falls short of expectations, does the Commission have a ‘Plan B’ to dispel possible adverse effects of the mandatory directive? Does it have watertight evidence that getting rid of light bulbs will enable emission volumes to be reduced in proportion to the quantity of energy used for lighting? Can the Commission say why the directive has not laid down rules on a country-by-country basis and has thus failed to allow for the fact that the benefits of using incandescent lamps may vary from one region to the next? To what extent, according to the Commission’s calculations, will the Incandescent Lamp Directive increase oil-fired heating energy requirements in Finland, and what will be the impact in terms of emissions?
7 May 2009
Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission
The Honourable Member is referred to the answer provided in response to Question E 1090/09(1) by Mr Mote as regards the heat replacement.
An essentially aim of implementing measures of the Ecodesign Directive (2005/32/EC)(2) is to ensure the free movement of goods through harmonised requirements that are the same for all products within the scope, wherever they are placed on the market in the EU.
As the product requirements and the functionalities are the same, a separate impact assessment for each and every Member State was not carried out. In addition, during the preparatory process, which had input from stakeholders all over Europe as well as national administrations, no significant issue was raised about varying impacts of using certain lighting technologies from one region to the other.
(1) Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
(2) OJ L 191, 22.7.2005.