Objectives of the study

The objective of this study is to produce a revised version of the MEErP, along the lines of the aspects laid down in the introduction, with the aim of:

• updating, when and where necessary, assessment methods and data used in the analyses carried out in the various tasks of the MEErP
• enhancing the capability of the MEErP to tackle material efficiency aspects, on the basis of the items discussed in the previous subsection
• proposing changes to the MEErP in order to tackle broader environmental aspects, e.g. using the environmental footprint and/or the ecological profile

Description of the tasks

Task 1 -   Updating of the EcoReport tool

Task 2 -   More systematic inclusion of material efficiency aspects and of environmental footprint/ecological profile aspects in the design options and in the LLCC curve

Task 3 -   More systematic inclusion of societal life cycle costs

Task 4 -   More refined evaluation of the economic impacts in task 7

Task 5 -   Other updates and integrations.

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

Task 1: Updating of the EcoReport tool

The Tool for EcoReport Calculations will be updated in agreement with the following general prescriptions:

• the current format of the EcoReport tool will be maintained, i.e. it will remain an Excel file freely downloadable from a Commission web site;
• the way for selecting the input data and calculating the impact categories/indicators should be fully ‘open’ and transparent;
• the datasets and their relationship to the bills of materials, energy sources etc., should be of an appropriate degree of complexity and refinement, i.e., generally at an “average EU level.

Task 2: More systematic inclusion of material efficiency aspects and of environmental footprint/ecological profile aspects in the design options and in the LLCC curve

In agreement with the principles laid down in the introduction, it will be proposed a procedure providing:

1. guidelines for the systematic inclusion (when relevant for the specific product group under analysis) of design options related to material efficiency aspects and to environmental footprint/ecological profile aspects.
2. Indications/guidelines on the life cycle costing of the design options developed at the previous point, including inter alia:
   • proper factoring of each cost category (e.g. evaluation of repair costs, maintenance costs, spare part costs.).
   • minimum data quality requirements on costs/prices (to prevent the modelling of design options with too scattered/uncertain information)
   • (if feasible) introduction of degradation factors linked to the share of operating costs associated with the energy consumption of the product (to factor in the increase of the energy consumption costs as a function of the product lifetime, e.g. due to degraded components)
   • dedicated provisions on how to deal with costs which could significantly vary across the European Union, such as manpower cost for reparation. An approach could e.g. consist in articulating the design options featuring this kind of costs in e.g. two sub-options (as a sort of simplified sensitivity analysis). The use of Purchasing Power Standard could also be explored.
   • systematic inclusion of lifetime in the LLCC ranking, by normalization of costs per year; this would include:
     • revising the life cycle costs formula
     • verifying if the proposed simplification of this formula is still valid when comparing design options with different lifetime.
3. Other approaches for inclusion of lifetime in the LLCC ranking could be explored.

Task 3: More systematic inclusion of societal life cycle costs

The current version of the MEErP allows, in theory, the inclusion of societal life cycle costs, by associating a tabular ‘MEErP equivalent’ price to each of the impact categories (such as global warming potential) calculated in the EcoReport tool.

In agreement with the principles laid down in the introduction, the following will be done:

1. Critically review and update the abovementioned approach and underlying data;
2. Make a proposal in which part/task of the MEErP this information should be made available, and how it should contribute to the decision-making process, leaving unchanged the current LLCC approach. The suggested approach is to systematically incorporate the societal life cycle costs as supporting information either to the costs associated to each design option, or within the economic impacts estimated in task 7 (see next task).

Task 4: More refined evaluation of the economic impacts in task 7 of the MEErP

In agreement with the principles laid down in the introduction, the following will be done:

1. Develop a refined method for the evaluation of the impacts on employment, including, when feasible, redistribution effects between sectors or countries
2. Systematically introduce the evaluation of the societal costs under task 7 of the MEErP, unless differently decided under task 3 of this study
3. Evaluate to what extent the analysis currently foreseen under task 7 of the MEErP, which is aimed to estimate the economic and environmental impacts linked to a specific policy option (e.g. business as usual, Ecodesign Requirements, Energy Labelling, Ecodesign Requirements + Energy Labelling, etc.) differs, and for which elements, to the analysis needed in the framework of an impact assessment report. Inter alia, and on the basis of the findings of the previous tasks of this study, it should be formalised which indicators/outputs of the EcoReport tool should be reported, to the extent of their relevance for, respectively, energy efficiency and material efficiency, alongside with indicators on consumables, such as water consumption of refrigerant refill consumption;
4. On the basis of the findings of the previous points, develop a proposal for a modified task 7 of the MEErP, for this task to become the reference data source for the evaluation of the economic and environmental impacts within an impact assessment report, with the aim of contributing to a potential decrease of the overall length of the regulatory process.

Task 5: Other updates and integrations

In agreement with the principles laid down in the introduction, the following will be done:

1. Update:

• Energy prices, energy prices growth rate, and the primary energy factor
• escalation rate, discount rate, Present Worth Factor, and inflation rate.
• propose a formal rule when ad-hoc deviations of the abovementioned indicators are possible, e.g. if needed for a specific product group.

2. Propose a standard approach for review studies, i.e. clarifying/formalising which tasks of the MEErP should (or should not, or on the basis of which conditions) be systematically updated during review studies.
3. Analyse how work on specific product groups will build, where appropriate, on criteria and rules established under the EU Ecolabel Regulation and the EU GPP criteria, and a recommendation will be proposed in this respect. Moreover it will be analysed how EU Ecolabel and EU GPP criteria could be developed at the same time of Ecodesign ones for the same product group, whenever suitable and relevant.